Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8
Date
Msg-id 71fc8af0d9324a08dd7854b2162ae4265a98d837.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8  ("Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>)
Responses Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8
Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8
Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 19:43 +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
> But in the meantime, personally I don't quite see why Postgres should
> start forcing C.UTF-8 to sort differently in the database than in the
> OS.

I can see both points of view. It could be surprising to users if
C.UTF-8 does not sort like C/memcmp, or surprising if it changes out
from under them. It could also be surprising that it wouldn't sort like
the current OS's libc interpretation of C.UTF-8.

What about ICU? How should provider=icu locale=C.UTF-8 behave? We
could:

a. Just pass it to the provider and see what happens (older versions of
ICU would interpret it as en-US-u-va-posix; newer versions would give
the root locale).

b. Consistently interpret it as en-US-u-va-posix.

c. Don't pass it to the provider at all and treat it with memcmp
semantics.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction