Re: ICU integration

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:19:39PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/8/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > This is a problem, if ICU won't guarantee cross-version compatibility,
> > because it destroys the argument that moving to ICU would offer us
> > collation behavior stability.
>
> It would offer a significant upgrade over the current situation.
>
> First, it offers stability inside the same version. Whereas glibc might
> change a collation in a minor upgrade, ICU won't do that. And the
> postgres binary is bound to a major version of ICU by the soname (which
> changes with every major release). So this would avoid the situation
> that a simple OS update could break collations.

Uh, how do we know that ICU doesn't change collations in minor versions?
Couldn't we get into a case where the OS changes the ICU version or
collations more frequently than glibc does? Seems that would be a
negative.

I don't see how having our binary bound to a ICU major version gives us
any benefit.

It seems we are still hostage to the OS version.

> Second, it offers a way to detect that something has changed. With
> glibc, you don't know anything unless you read the source diffs. With
> ICU, you can compare the collation version before and after and at least
> tell the user that they need to refresh indexes or whatever.

Yes, that is a clear win.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +