From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Possible to create a hidden collation
In-reply-to: <051c9395cf880307865ee8b17acdbf7f838c1e39.camel@j-davis.com>
References: <051c9395cf880307865ee8b17acdbf7f838c1e39.camel@j-davis.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
	message dated "Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:38 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1209302.1683849734.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 20:02:14 -0400
Message-ID: <1209303.1683849734@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1209303.1683849734%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> There's no reason to create user defined collations with collencoding=-
> 1. As far as I can tell, collencoding is only there to hide built-in
> collations (inherited from template0) that aren't compatible with the
> current database encoding. So we can just always create user-defined
> collations with collencoding=GetDatabaseEncoding().

What happens if somebody makes a user-defined collation in template0
and then clones that into a different encoding?  I guess the user-defined
collation would then be hidden/inaccessible in the clone DB, so maybe it's
fine.

			regards, tom lane