On fre, 2011-04-08 at 20:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that this display doesn't include any encoding column, I'm
> thinking that the intention was to show only relevant collation
> entries.
> Which we could do by adding a WHERE clause about the encoding.
> If the intention was to not restrict that way, don't we need an
> encoding
> column? (But I'm not actually sure how we could make that work
> unsurprisingly without changes in CollationGetCollid, which would
> likely
> break other things, so I don't really want to hear suggestions that we
> should do it the other way ...)
The fix you pushed looks OK.
The whole way of dealing with the wrong encodings has been schizophrenic
throughout the development of this feature. One idea was that at some
point we could add support for creating collations in the wrong encoding
in template databases, if that turns out to be something that is
requested. You can, of course, do that manually already.