Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jonathan S. Katz
Тема Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
Дата
Msg-id 3e51d7f8-284e-29d5-39c9-3b7d6b4a53dc@postgresql.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Ответы Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
Список pgsql-hackers
On 6/6/23 3:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/6/23 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Also +1, except that I find "none" a rather confusing choice of name.
>>>> There *is* a provider, it's just PG itself not either libc or ICU.
>>>> I thought Joe's suggestion of "internal" made more sense.
>>
>>> Or perhaps "builtin" or "postgresql".
>>
>> Either OK by me
> 
> Same here

Since we're bikeshedding, "postgresql" or "builtin" could make it seem 
to a (app) developer that these may be recommended options, as we're 
trusting PostgreSQL to make the best choices for us. Granted, v16 is 
(theoretically) defaulting to ICU, so that choice is made, but the 
unsuspecting developer could make a switch based on that naming.

However, I don't have a strong alternative -- I understand the concern 
about "internal", so I'd be OK with "postgresql" unless a better name 
appears.

Jonathan


Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Cleaning up nbtree after logical decoding on standby work
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Assert failure of the cross-check for nullingrels