On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > It's something I hope to address soon.
I hope you do. I think that we'd realize significant benefits by having ICU become the defacto standard collation provider, that most users get without even realizing it. As things stand, you have to make a point of specifying an ICU collation as your per-column collation within every CREATE TABLE. That's a significant barrier to adoption. > 1) Associate by name only. That is, you can create a database with any > COLLATION "foo" that you want, and it's only checked when you first > connect to or do anything in the database. > > 2) Create shared collations. Then we'd need a way to manage having a > mix of shared and non-shared collations around. > > There are significant pros and cons to all of these ideas. Some people > I talked to appeared to prefer the shared collations approach. I strongly prefer the second approach. The only downside that occurs to me is that that approach requires more code. Is there something that I've missed? -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
