| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [19] Proposal: function markers to indicate collation/ctype sensitivity |
| Date: | 2025-06-11 07:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 32ff8482-5cc9-4d96-b8ed-4baed9498332@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.06.25 22:47, Jeff Davis wrote:
> While we're at it, CTYPE is not very descriptive for a user-facing
> name. And COLLATE has become overloaded (expression clause,
> pg_collation object, ordering, or the superset of behaviors that
> includes CTYPE). Let's consider more user-friendly naming for the
> markers:
>
> CASE: lower/upper/initcap/fold behavior
> CLASS: char classifications such as [[:punct:]]
> ORDER: comparisons
>
> Internally, at least for the foreseeable future, CASE and CLASS would
> be the same. They'd just be different markers to record the user's
> intent.
Under what scenario would they become different, and how would that
matter in practice?
I would be worried that this could confuse users and they would apply
these incorrectly, if the differences are too fine.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-06-11 07:13:32 | Re: Improve the performance of Unicode Normalization Forms. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-11 07:03:46 | Re: [19] Proposal: function markers to indicate collation/ctype sensitivity |