On 19.06.25 06:03, Thom Brown wrote:
> Late to the party, but is there an argument for porting this to the
> citext type? Or supplementing the extension with an additional type
> ("cftext"? *shrug*). It currently uses lower(), so our current
> recommendation for dealing with all unicode characters is to use
> nondeterministic collations.
What is the motivation for wanting a citext variant instead of using
nondeterministic collations?