Обсуждение: Re: Cosmetic bug in 7.0 docs

>  I today a save time for reading in current docs  (it is under next URL?)
>         http://www.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/index.html
>  and I found some cosmetic bugs:
>  - the copyright is 1996-9, but not 2000 (is it right?)

Fixed that in my sources while generating hardcopy; will commit today.

>  - the pg_dump support long argv switches (like the other routines), but
>         in docs it is not.

Sorry, where exactly is that in the docs? I haven't looked yet, but
will poke at pg_dump.sgml...
                   - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

If this is not the right place to ask this question please feel free to
tell me to go away but I figure you guys would know the code best.

In a nutshell I want to use postgres as a back end to an access
database. This means that all collation done by postgres musht be case
insensitive including like clauses. Combing through the archives I
noticed that this question has been asked many times and the answer
seems to be to use *~ or to use lower(something)=lower(something).
Unfrotunately neither of these will work with access because access will
be generating the query in response to some user setting a filter or
pressing a button.

From my research I gather that I have one of two options here. One is to
overload the = and the ~~ operators using a user defined function or to
just go at the source itself and change the text_cmp in varlena.c and/or
varchareq function in varchar.c.

If I overload the function using pl/pqsql how much of a performance hit
am I taking? If I decide to rewrite the comparison functions will I
break everything and if not which other functions should I rewrite.

Also how much damage will I do if I change the NAMEDATALEN to come a
little closer to access standards (actually I was thinking of setting it
something like 64 as a compromise).