Re: For review: Initial support for COLLATE

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:12:12PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> No, and in fact the terminology mixup in your patch and description
> concerns me. If you are talking about collation, then the data types,
> system catalog columns, etc. should talk about collation, not about
> "locale", because that encompasses a number of other things that can be
> handled independent of the collation order.

That's because locale handling == collate handling. If you want to have
a system that allows you to choose what collate order to use when, it
also allows you to control all the other locale attributes with exactly
the same code. You can't seperate them.

To make multiple COLLATE orders work, PostgreSQL needs a new locale
framework, one that is not bound by POSIX. That's why you see both
things referred to.

Look at the POSIX interface, look at ICU. They both provide collate
order *and* date/time formats *and* number formatting. Pretending
they're seperate is silly.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.