On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of "LIKE" and collations
> having any meaningful interaction anyways. I certainly can't come up
> with anything better than "lower() like lower()" (or "upper() like
> upper()").
Hm. Maybe I spoke too f
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> James Cloos writes:
>> Is there any contraindication to recasting:
>> foo ILIKE 'bar'
>> into:
>> LOWER(foo) LIKE LOWER('bar')
>
> In some locales those are not equivalent, I believe, or at least
> shouldn't be. (What the current code actua
> "TL" == Tom Lane writes:
JC>> Is there any contraindication to recasting:
JC>> foo ILIKE 'bar'
JC>> into:
JC>> LOWER(foo) LIKE LOWER('bar')
TL> In some locales those are not equivalent, I believe, or at least
TL> shouldn't be. (What the current code actually does is a separate
TL> questio
James Cloos writes:
> Is there any contraindication to recasting:
> foo ILIKE 'bar'
> into:
> LOWER(foo) LIKE LOWER('bar')
In some locales those are not equivalent, I believe, or at least
shouldn't be. (What the current code actually does is a separate
question.)
> Perhaps the parser could
