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

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE?
Date
Msg-id 6cb2b2d9112ed17250d55a757d2db9f2d1042f53.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 17:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> For starters, C locale should certainly act different from others.

Agreed. ctype of "C" is 100% stable (as implemented in Postgres with
special ASCII-only semantics) and simple.

I'm looking for a way to offer a new middle ground between plain "C"
and buying into all of the problems with collation providers and
localization. We don't need to remove functionality to do so.

Providing Unicode ctype behavior doesn't look very hard. Collations
could select it either with a special name or by using the "builtin"
provider I proposed earlier. If the behavior does change with a new
Unicode version it would be easier to see and less likely to affect on-
disk structures than a collation change.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Document parameter count limit
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?