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 D4EAA2D78F for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:22:30 -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 4epU7GcNt2Kt for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (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 927152D602 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add surrogate ID for BINARY collation References: <80794eb0182261e1887adc60c170c550de91fabc.1540460716.git.korablev@tarantool.org> <2A51C9E8-2A24-4F04-ABF1-0983F4322E82@tarantool.org> <20181101113717.GB2340@chai> From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: <84dc3919-fd62-143d-327b-6f7ae184be5e@tarantool.org> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:22:27 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181101113717.GB2340@chai> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Konstantin Osipov , tarantool-patches@freelists.org 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. 2) Some advanced users could already create their own collations, so 3 may be occupied. 3) Actually binary collation == no collation and it is consistent to has its ID near COLL_NONE, in a "special range" of collation identifiers.