Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
