Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think we should bite the bullet and adopt ICU, I see absolutely nothing to recommend that course of action. Reasons not to: 1. Being compatible with the operating system's collation behavior is a feature, not a bug. If nothing else, it allows us to tell people that if we sort data the same way that sort(1) does, then it's not a bug that we're not sorting the way they think we should. But quite aside from that, there are practical uses to being compatible with other tools. 2. Last I checked, ICU *only* supports Unicode, and not only that, but only UTF16. This is a non-starter; not only for our Far Eastern users, but also those who find various LatinX encodings sufficient. ICU would be a functional fail for the former and a performance fail for the latter. 3. As Thomas Munro already noted, whatcha gonna do when ICU changes their collations? Or are their collations graven on stone tablets, unlike anyone else's? We certainly could stand to put some work into the problem of coping with collation changes. But claiming that ICU is the solution, or even a solution, seems obviously wrong. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
