Re: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Peter, with respect, it's time to let this argument go. We're
> scheduled to wrap a GA release in just over 72 hours.

FWIW, the release is a week from Monday, not Monday. (Or if it is
Monday, somebody else is wrapping it.)

We have some other embarrassingly critical things to fix, like bug #14825,
so I can certainly sympathize with an argument that there's not enough
committer bandwidth left to deal with this; but not with an argument that
it's too late to change behavior period.

The big concern I have here is that this feels a lot like something that
we'll regret at leisure, if it's not right in the first release. I'd
much rather be restrictive in v10 and then loosen the rules later, than
be lax in v10 and then have to argue about whether to break backwards
compatibility in order to gain saner behavior.

> We have never canonicalized collations before and therefore it is not
> essential that we do that now.

Actually, we try; see initdb.c's check_locale_name(). It's not our
fault that setlocale(3) fails to play along on many platforms.

> I simply do not buy the theory that this cannot be changed later.

OK, so you're promising not to whine when we break backwards compatibility
on this point in v11?

regards, tom lane