From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 4D6D12F1A5 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7LJC-Y-oq3w for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp52.i.mail.ru (smtp52.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 0A7B72F17B for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:58:10 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add surrogate ID for BINARY collation Message-ID: <20181101125810.GA28156@chai> References: <80794eb0182261e1887adc60c170c550de91fabc.1540460716.git.korablev@tarantool.org> <2A51C9E8-2A24-4F04-ABF1-0983F4322E82@tarantool.org> <20181101113717.GB2340@chai> <84dc3919-fd62-143d-327b-6f7ae184be5e@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84dc3919-fd62-143d-327b-6f7ae184be5e@tarantool.org> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Vladislav Shpilevoy Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org * Vladislav Shpilevoy [18/11/01 15:23]: > > On 01/11/2018 14:37, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > > * n.pettik [18/10/31 18:52]: > > > > Sorry for a last-minute comment, but is there any reason why id > > has to be 4294967294? Why not use the next spare id, it's 3 > > AFAIR? > > > I guess, because > > 1) It is not real collation and is not presented in > _collation. So for a user it would be strange to see > a gap between 2 and 4 in _collation, which can not be > set. Let's insert it there. > 2) Some advanced users could already create their own > collations, so 3 may be occupied. No, they couldn't. > 3) Actually binary collation == no collation and it > is consistent to has its ID near COLL_NONE, in a "special > range" of collation identifiers. Uhm, AFAIU we have two binary collations. One is "collation is not set" and another is "collation binary". Which one did you mean now? -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov