On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/17 21:22, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> It's not clear to me that this is better. Why do we need to use a
>>> function that is clearly not the preferred API for this ("col" vs "loc")
>>> just to get more entries?
>> My argument for doing this is very simple: ICU/CLDR/BCP 47 provides
>> stability guarantees for locales, not collations [1]. For example, as
>> we discussed, de_BE didn't actually go away -- it just stopped being a
>> distinct collation within ICU, for reasons that are implementation
>> defined.
>>
>> I admit that there are arguments against this, but by far the most
>> important consideration should be the stability of the names used for
>> pg_collation entries created during initdb.
>
> One argument I can think of is that it is confusing right now. Why is
> there de-AT but no de-DE? I know why, but users in "DE" might not and
> would be really confused. So I concede that adding the full set would
> be useful.
Actually, there would be a de-DE. Just like with de-BE, that's ensured
by using locales rather than collations. See my self-contained test
program, or even the output I posted earlier.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs