#31777 closed New feature (fixed)
Custom collations
| Reported by: | Tom Carrick | Owned by: | Tom Carrick |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | dev |
| Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin | |
| Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
| Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
| Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
Mailing list, but it didn't get any responses: https://groups.google.com/u/2/g/django-developers/c/djMQwwxtCVY
We have the various CI fields on postgres, but these are discouraged since pg12 in favour of nondeterministic collations. I think it'd be useful to have a way to do this in Django, though I'm not sure what the API would look like. My initial thought, knowing very little about the ORM, is a Collation class that can be passed into a model field, but I'm not sure.
Change History (16)
comment:1 by , 5 years ago
comment:2 by , 5 years ago
| Resolution: | → needsinfo |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Mailing list, but it didn't get any responses...
Hi Tom. I feel bad saying you need to go back to the mailing list, but without SOME proposal this isn't really actionable as it stands.
You've got Simon's attention now, so there's hope there... 🙂
Short of that, I'd suggest sketching up some ideas and following up your initial post. (Having just looked at it, it's a bit "Argh! no idea", at first glance.)
I'm going to close as needs info for now. Really happy to re-open either we have some suggestions for the API, or (less good) we're happy to leave it open even undefined, but then I'd probably want to mark it Someday/Maybe. I hope that makes sense.
comment:3 by , 5 years ago
| Resolution: | needsinfo |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → new |
Hello Carlton, given that there's a PR that looks quite reasonable and a bit of support on the mailing list, I'm going to reopen and accept.
The ticket was short on details; the PR makes things clearer.
Essentially this is adding ORM support for a feature that most databases support. I'm not seeing obvious drawbacks. Hence, accepting.
comment:4 by , 5 years ago
| Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
|---|
comment:6 by , 5 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:7 by , 5 years ago
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|---|
| Has patch: | set |
comment:8 by , 5 years ago
| Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
|---|
comment:9 by , 5 years ago
| Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin → Accepted |
|---|
You shouldn't mark you own PRs as ready for checkin.
comment:10 by , 5 years ago
| Patch needs improvement: | set |
|---|
comment:11 by , 5 years ago
| Patch needs improvement: | unset |
|---|
comment:12 by , 5 years ago
| Patch needs improvement: | set |
|---|
comment:13 by , 5 years ago
| Patch needs improvement: | unset |
|---|
comment:14 by , 5 years ago
| Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
|---|
Related to #21181, #9682, and #5745.