Re: insensitive collations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: insensitive collations
Date
Msg-id 11565.1545255708@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: insensitive collations  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> The Unicode consortium calls our current behavior within comparisons
> "deterministic comparisons" -- it's something they're not so keen on:
> https://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Deterministic_Comparison
> I suggest using their terminology for our current behavior.

Hm, it's not the greatest terminology perhaps, but if they're using it
then that makes it at least semi-standard.  I can live with that.

> FWIW, I don't think that your IEEE analogy quite works, because you're
> talking about a property of a datatype. A collation is not intrinsic
> to any collatable datatype. Fortunately, we're not required to agree
> on what feels natural.

Right, which is exactly why it'd be a bad idea to use "natural" as the
name for this property ...

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: insensitive collations
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: lock level for DETACH PARTITION looks sketchy