Re: per-database locale: createdb switches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +