Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Am Freitag, 12. Oktober 2007 schrieb Gregory Stark:
It would make Postgres inconsistent and less integrated with the rest of
the OS. How do you explain that Postgres doesn't follow the system's
configurations and the collations don't agree with the system collations?

We already have our own encoding support (for better or worse), and I don't think having one's own locale support would be that much different.

Well, yes it would be, because encodings are pretty well standardized;
there is not likely to be any user-visible difference between one
platform's idea of UTF8 and another's.  This is very very far from being
the case for locales.  See for instance the recent thread in which we
found out that "en_US" locale has utterly different sort orders on
Linux and OS X.

For me, this paragraph is more of in argument *in favour* of having our own locale support. At least for me, consistency between PG running on different platforms would bring more benefits than consistency between PG and the platform it runs on.

At the company I used to work for, we had all our databases running with encoding=utf-8 and locale=C, because I didn't want our applications to depend on platform-specific locale issues. Plus, some of the applications supported multiple languages, making a cluster-global locale unworkable anyway - a restriction which would go away if we went with ICU.

regards, Florian Pflug

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to