#34501: Revert CICharField deprecation
----------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: Johannes Maron | Owner: (none)
Type: Uncategorized | Status: new
Component: contrib.postgres | Version: 4.2
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
----------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by Johannes Maron):
* cc: Johannes Maron (added)
Old description:
> Ref #33872
>
> In case my mailing list comment gets lost, I make this as unreviewed and
> leave a copy here:
> Hi there,
>
> I am sorry that I missed this in the alpha. But to the best of my
> knowledge, CITEXT and non-deterministic collations are not the same. They
> don't support the same operations and their string comparison operations
> are similar, yet not identical.
> Furthermore, PostgreSQL doesn't discourage the use of CITEXT, but hints
> towards a native alternative. That's maybe more than just a subtle
> difference.
>
> 99% of all use-cases might be email, but even email LIKE-queries would be
> affected (good for +-searches).
> Unless we want to drop support for the CITEXT extension, collations might
> not be a sufficient replacement.
>
> I'd caution to revert the deprecation and keep support unless we make an
> informed decision to drop CITEXT for a 3rd party integration.
>
> Best
> Joe!
>
> Update: We noticed vast problems while trying to migrate to collations in
> Django admin. Sadly, this isn't straightforward and requires a lot of,
> which solidifies my belief that we should revert the deprecation
> altogether. Especially since the PG feature has no plans for
> discontinuation.
>
> I really appreciate the effort that was put into the initial commit. But,
> weighting the user pain vs the rather marginal maintenance effort of the
> DB type, seems maybe not worth it.
New description:
Ref #33872 -
https://github.com/django/django/commit/cb791a2540c289390b68a3ea9c6a79476890bab2
In case my mailing list comment gets lost, I make this as unreviewed and
leave a copy here:
Hi there,
I am sorry that I missed this in the alpha. But to the best of my
knowledge, CITEXT and non-deterministic collations are not the same. They
don't support the same operations and their string comparison operations
are similar, yet not identical.
Furthermore, PostgreSQL doesn't discourage the use of CITEXT, but hints
towards a native alternative. That's maybe more than just a subtle
difference.
99% of all use-cases might be email, but even email LIKE-queries would be
affected (good for +-searches).
Unless we want to drop support for the CITEXT extension, collations might
not be a sufficient replacement.
I'd caution to revert the deprecation and keep support unless we make an
informed decision to drop CITEXT for a 3rd party integration.
Best
Joe!
Update: We noticed vast problems while trying to migrate to collations in
Django admin. Sadly, this isn't straightforward and requires a lot of,
which solidifies my belief that we should revert the deprecation
altogether. Especially since the PG feature has no plans for
discontinuation.
I really appreciate the effort that was put into the initial commit. But,
weighting the user pain vs the rather marginal maintenance effort of the
DB type, seems maybe not worth it.
--
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34501#comment:1>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/010701879352d379-012f83e3-6d71-4d2d-a8cf-7be8a9123bf9-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
