Message-ID: <9e5b70b6a45166e42b1a878e260dd2e1c76be506.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Use CASEFOLD() internally rather than LOWER()
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:53:42 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1A46D941-E0A4-4B3E-AAEA-1F7B6CCD24E6@gmail.com>
References: <64d7949bad90545f981ac7513fb0b4954daca2c9.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <1A46D941-E0A4-4B3E-AAEA-1F7B6CCD24E6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3-0ubuntu1.1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9e5b70b6a45166e42b1a878e260dd2e1c76be506.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 10:14 +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> 1 - 0001
> ```
> +SELECT U&'stra=C3=9Fe' ILIKE U&'STRASSE' COLLATE PG_C_UTF8;
> ```
>=20
> Do we want to added one more test:
> ```
> SELECT U&'stra=C3=9Fe' ILIKE U&'STRASSE' COLLATE PG_UNICODE_FAST;
> =C2=A0?column?
> ----------
> =C2=A0t
> (1 row)
> ```
> Which tests the different behaviors against collations.

I am confused, doesn't the patch already have both of those tests for
both collations? What change are you suggesting?

> I initially thought to add test cases with different collations, but
> after debugging, I found that citext intentionally ignores specified
> collation.

Adding a test that's dependent on the database-wide collation is more
heavyweight because it needs to create a new database.


Regards,
	Jeff Davis