Re: Collation & ctype method table, and extension hooks

This thread was still open in the commitfest and showed up on my dashboard.

My understanding is that v16-0001 and v16-0002 have been committed, and 
per the discussion below, the remaining patches v16-0003 and v16-0004 
have been withdrawn for now.  So I will close this commitfest entry.


On 30.06.25 21:21, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-06-29 at 12:43 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I wish we could take this further and also run the "ctype is c" case
>> through the method table.  Right now, there are still a bunch of
>> open-coded special cases all over the place, which could be unified.
>> I
>> guess this isn't any worse than before, but maybe this could be a
>> future
>> project?
> 
> +1. A few things need to be sorted out, but I don't see any major
> problem with that.
> 
>> Patch 0003 I don't understand.  It replaces type safety by no type
>> safety, and it doesn't have any explanation or comments.  I suppose
>> you
>> have further plans in this direction, but until we have seen those
>> and
>> have more clarification and explanation, I would hold this back.
> 
> Part of it is simply #include cleanliness, because we can't do v16-0004
> if we have the provider-specific details in the union. I don't really
> like the idea of including ICU headers (indirectly) so many places.
> Another part is that I'd like to abstract the providers more completely
> -- I've alluded to that a few times but I haven't made an independent
> proposal for that yet. Also, the union doesn't offer a lot of type
> safety, so I don't see it as a big loss.
> 
> But it's not critical right now either, so I won't push for it.
> 
>> Patch 0004 seems ok.  But maybe you could explain this better in the
>> commit message, like remove includes from pg_locale.h but instead put
>> them in the .c files as needed, and explain why this is possible or
>> suitable now.
> 
> It goes with v16-0003, so I will hold this back for now as well.
> 
> Regards,
> 	Jeff Davis
> 
> 
>