Re: Built-in CTYPE provider

Noah Misch wrote:

> If I'm counting the votes right, you and Tom have voted that the feature's
> current state is okay, and I and Laurenz have voted that it's not okay. I
> still hope more people will vote, to avoid dealing with the tie. Daniel,
> Peter, and Jeremy, you're all listed as reviewers on commit f69319f. Are
> you
> willing to vote one way or the other on the question in
> https://postgr.es/m/20240706195129.fd@rfd.leadboat.com?

For me, the current state is okay.

In the mentioned question, you're doing this:

v17 can simulate the Unicode aspect of a v18 upgrade, like this:
sed -i 's/^UNICODE_VERSION.*/UNICODE_VERSION = 16.0.0/'
src/Makefile.global.in

to force a Unicode upgrade. But a packager could do the same
to force a Unicode downgrade, if they wanted.

Therefore I don't agree with this summary in
<20240711125040(dot)11(dot)nmisch(at)google(dot)com>:

> | ICU collations | pg_c_utf8
> ----------------------------------|-------------------|----------
> Corruption within a major version | packager's choice | no
> Corruption at pg_upgrade time | packager's choice | yes

Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
https://postgresql.verite.pro/
Twitter: @DanielVerite