public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sorting regression of text function result since commit 586b98fdf1aae
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:52:46 +0100
Message-ID: <20231212115246.376da94b@karst> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <20231211210951.5020a5d6@karst>
	<[email protected]>

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:43:12 -0500
Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <[email protected]> writes:
> > It looks like since 586b98fdf1aae, the result type collation of
> > "convert_from" is forced to "C", like the patch does for type "name",
> > instead of the "default" collation for type "text".  
> 
> Well, convert_from() inherits its result collation from the input,
> per the normal rules for collation assignment [1].
> 
> > Looking at hints in the header comment of function "exprCollation", I poked
> > around and found that the result collation wrongly follow the input
> > collation in this case.  
> 
> It's not "wrong", it's what the SQL standard requires.

Mh, OK. This is at least a surprising behavior. Having a non-data related
argument impacting the result collation seems counter-intuitive. But I
understand this is by standard, no need to discuss it.

> > I couldn't find anything explaining this behavior in the changelog. It looks
> > like a regression to me, but if this is actually expected, maybe this
> > deserve some documentation patch?  
> 
> The v12 release notes do say
> 
>     Type name now behaves much like a domain over type text that has
>     default collation “C”.

Sure, and I saw it, but reading at this entry, I couldn't guess this could have
such implication on text result from a function call. That's why I hunt for
the precise commit and was surprise to find this was the actual change.

> You'd have similar results from an expression involving such a domain,
> I believe.
> 
> I'm less than excited about patching the v12 release notes four
> years later.  Maybe, if this point had come up in a more timely
> fashion, we'd have mentioned it --- but it's hardly possible to
> cover every potential implication of such a change in the
> release notes.

This could have been documented in the collation concept page, as a trap to be
aware of. A link from the release note to such a small paragraph would have
been enough to warn devs this might have implications when mixed with other
collatable types. But I understand we can not document all the traps paving the
way to the standard anyway.

Thank you for your explanation!

Regards,

view thread (5+ messages)

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Sorting regression of text function result since commit 586b98fdf1aae
  In-Reply-To: <20231212115246.376da94b@karst>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox