"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The only way I'd be willing to label those things immutable was if
>> we did something to lock down lc_monetary for the life of a
>> database (ie, make it work more like lc_collate does now). Which
>> might be a good idea, but it's not how it works today.
> Interesting. In general, what is involved in locking something like
> this down for the life of a database?
IIRC, the main pain point is providing an option for CREATE DATABASE
to set the value. If you chase down all the references to lc_collate
you'll get the picture.
It'd probably be worth doing if money were less deprecated, but right
now I can't get excited about it.
Actually ... the thing that might turn money into a less deprecated type
is if you could set lc_monetary per column. I wonder whether Peter's
collation hack could be extended to deal with that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
