On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 5:30 PM Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > The attached patches implement a more modest proposal which does not > conflict with Peter's objection about the display order: > > 0001: If the encoding is unspecified, and cannot be determined from the > locale (i.e. the locale is C), then use UTF-8 rather than SQL_ASCII.
I don't know if this is exactly the right proposal, but I think it's probably appropriate to start gently pushing people towards UTF-8 rather than anything else. Unicode has largely won, AFAICT, and the use cases for anything else are increasingly narrow. I don't think we should try to be coercive, but there's a reasonable presumption that people who haven't said what they want probably want UTF8. > 0002: If the provider is unspecified, and the locale is C or C.UTF-8, > then use the builtin provider. I'm much less convinced about this idea. I think the number of people who will be unhappy about the less-user-friendly sort order changes is probably quite high. It's reasonable to want something more stable and better version-controlled than libc, but switching to a simple code-point sort seems like a high price to pay for that. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
