Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 07:24, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The fallacy in that proposal is the assumption that there are only two
>> behaviors out there.

> Well, no, that's not the assumption at all. The assumption is that the
> type works properly with multibyte characters under multibyte-aware
> locales. So I want to have tests to ensure that such is true by having
> multibyte characters run under a very specific locale and platform.

[ shrug... ] Seems pretty useless to me: we already know that it works
for you. The point of a regression test in my mind is to make sure that
it works for everybody. Given the platform variations involved in
strcoll's behavior, the definition of "works for everybody" is going to
be pretty darn narrowly circumscribed anyway, and thus I don't have a
big problem with restricting the tests to ASCII cases.

Let me put it another way: if we test on another platform and find out
that strcoll's behavior is different there, are you going to fix that
version of strcoll? No, you're not. So you might as well just test the
behavior of the code that's actually under your control.

regards, tom lane