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

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
Date
Msg-id ebda05062491d00f84d87f6edd7d90022ebf1c37.camel@j-davis.com
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 Tue, 2023-06-06 at 14:11 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> This discussion makes me wonder (though probably too late for the v16
> cycle) if we shouldn't treat "C" and "POSIX" locales to be a third
> provider, something like "internal".

That's exactly what I did in v6 of this series: I created a "none"
provider, and when someone specified provider=icu iculocale=C, it would
change the provider to "none":

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5f9bf4a0b040428c5db2dc1f23cc3ad96acb5672.camel%40j-davis.com

I'm fine with either approach.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Cary Huang
Date:
Subject: Re: Mark a transaction uncommittable
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction