| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: insensitive collations |
| Date: | 2018-12-19 21:41:48 |
| Message-ID: | 11565.1545255708@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> The Unicode consortium calls our current behavior within comparisons
> "deterministic comparisons" -- it's something they're not so keen on:
> https://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Deterministic_Comparison
> I suggest using their terminology for our current behavior.
Hm, it's not the greatest terminology perhaps, but if they're using it
then that makes it at least semi-standard. I can live with that.
> FWIW, I don't think that your IEEE analogy quite works, because you're
> talking about a property of a datatype. A collation is not intrinsic
> to any collatable datatype. Fortunately, we're not required to agree
> on what feels natural.
Right, which is exactly why it'd be a bad idea to use "natural" as the
name for this property ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-12-19 21:58:22 | Re: lock level for DETACH PARTITION looks sketchy |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-12-19 21:29:20 | Re: insensitive collations |