On 8/17/17 21:22, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> It's not clear to me that this is better. Why do we need to use a
>> function that is clearly not the preferred API for this ("col" vs "loc")
>> just to get more entries?
> My argument for doing this is very simple: ICU/CLDR/BCP 47 provides
> stability guarantees for locales, not collations [1]. For example, as
> we discussed, de_BE didn't actually go away -- it just stopped being a
> distinct collation within ICU, for reasons that are implementation
> defined.
>
> I admit that there are arguments against this, but by far the most
> important consideration should be the stability of the names used for
> pg_collation entries created during initdb.
One argument I can think of is that it is confusing right now. Why is
there de-AT but no de-DE? I know why, but users in "DE" might not and
would be really confused. So I concede that adding the full set would
be useful.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
