From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kyukhin@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp52.i.mail.ru (smtp52.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.112])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20D646971A
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri,  6 Dec 2019 14:42:45 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:42:44 +0300
From: Kirill Yukhin <kyukhin@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20191206114244.umbeo556b2atuhjm@tarantool.org>
References: <20191129233922.36600-1-k.sosnin@tarantool.org>
 <20191130203439.GA23478@atlas>
 <13437800-f8ec-1964-f7d7-a01581e242ad@tarantool.org>
 <20191202070715.GA27802@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20191202070715.GA27802@atlas>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] box: remove unicode_ci for functions
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>, Chris Sosnin <k.sosnin@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Hello,

On 02 дек 10:07, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> [19/12/01 19:29]:
> > >> Unicode_ci collation breaks the general
> > >> rule for objects naming, so we remove it
> > >> in version 2.3.1
> > > 
> > > The code works according to RFC.
> > > 
> > > There is a justification for this behaviour in RFC.
> 
> Please see my reply with an explanation. The RFC was  written
> presuming https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4467 
> will be fixed.

It was clearly pointed that proposal in #4467 is broken by
design. Please see [1] for details. Having that said I think
we should consider the proposal rejected and won't try to invent
any new workarounds.

[1] - https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4467#issuecomment-527210486 and later.


Thanks a lot for your inputs!

--
Regards, Kirill Yukhin