Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Hmm, I remember I pondered for a long time if it should be COLLATE and
> >> CTYPE or LC_COLLATE and LC_CTYPE. I think the rationale in the end was
> >> that a) COLLATE/CTYPE looks nicer and b) if we add support for ICU or
> >> some other collation implementation, the association with LC_*
> >> environment variables becomes misleading.
> >>
> >> Being consistent would be nice, though.
>
> > I think consistency could be reached by renaming the GUC setting to
> > ctype.
>
> I think this is a bad idea, particularly if you also rename the other
> GUC to COLLATE (which is a reserved word that we're going to have to
> implement someday). People know what LC_CTYPE and LC_COLLATE do,
> at least if they've heard of Unix locale support at all (and if not
> they can google those names successfully).
>
> If we want consistency then the right answer is to rename the *new*
> things to lc_xxx, not break compatibility on the names of the
> existing things.
Is anyone working on resolving this?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +