db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Collation implementation WAS Re: Should COLLATION attribute related code go in BasicDatabase?
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:39:09 GMT

Mike Matrigali wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> ...
>> My second concern is that many places get characters and the change 
>> must ensure they get the correct datatype, apart from potentially 
>> being a lot of work, the chance of missing some or picking the wrong 
>> character types seems high.
> What is the plan for system catalogs?  I just realized that if system
> catalog char's are going to be non-collation based then I guess 10.3
> would really already be supporting 2 different collations per database.
I think this is why I expected new type id's.  I didn't expect the type
id's to represent a specific collation, just that it had a non-default
collation.  Thus system catalogs would always have default collation.
So it seems like we need to choose:
1) system catalogs share locale based collation with rest of db
2) add new type ids as previously proposed
3) support per conglomerate collation

note that we need to support proper recovery of system catalogs so we 
can't solve the problem though some magic runtime manipulation of system
catalog queries.


View raw message