Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?
I think we can just leave it for now.