Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jonathan S. Katz
Subject Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
Date
Msg-id 3e51d7f8-284e-29d5-39c9-3b7d6b4a53dc@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
List pgsql-hackers
On 6/6/23 3:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/6/23 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Also +1, except that I find "none" a rather confusing choice of name.
>>>> There *is* a provider, it's just PG itself not either libc or ICU.
>>>> I thought Joe's suggestion of "internal" made more sense.
>>
>>> Or perhaps "builtin" or "postgresql".
>>
>> Either OK by me
> 
> Same here

Since we're bikeshedding, "postgresql" or "builtin" could make it seem 
to a (app) developer that these may be recommended options, as we're 
trusting PostgreSQL to make the best choices for us. Granted, v16 is 
(theoretically) defaulting to ICU, so that choice is made, but the 
unsuspecting developer could make a switch based on that naming.

However, I don't have a strong alternative -- I understand the concern 
about "internal", so I'd be OK with "postgresql" unless a better name 
appears.

Jonathan


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Cleaning up nbtree after logical decoding on standby work
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Assert failure of the cross-check for nullingrels