| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |
| Date: | 2023-10-10 14:02:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaJoECzK-rzMBmMktBfEVMAfLmtG8PdmHfq2UYRoHvsmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 2:44 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> Can you restate what this is supposed to be for? This thread appears to
> have morphed from "let's normalize everything" to "let's check for
> unassigned code points", but I'm not sure what we are aiming for now.
Jeff can say what he wants it for, but one obvious application would
be to have the ability to add a CHECK constraint that forbids
inserting unassigned code points into your database, which would be
useful if you're worried about forward-compatibility with collation
definitions that might be extended to cover those code points in the
future. Another application would be to find data already in your
database that has this potential problem.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-10 14:12:36 | Re: CHECK Constraint Deferrable |
| Previous Message | torikoshia | 2023-10-10 13:27:08 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |