Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE?
Date
Msg-id 1401159.1698355934@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE?  ("Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>)
Responses Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE?
List pgsql-hackers
"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:
> To me the question of what we should put in pg_collation.collctype
> for the "ucs_basic" collation leads to another question which is:
> why do we even consider collctype in the first place?

For starters, C locale should certainly act different from others.

I'm not sold that arguing from Unicode's behavior to other encodings
makes sense, either.  Unicode can get away with defining that there's
only one case-folding rule because they have the luxury of inventing
new code points when the "same" glyph should act differently according
to different languages' rules.  Encodings with a small number of code
points don't have that luxury.  In particular see the mess around dotted
and dotless I/J in Turkish vs. everywhere else.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: [17] Special search_path names "!pg_temp" and "!pg_catalog"
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Making aggregate deserialization (and WAL receive) functions slightly faster