| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0 |
| Date: | 2025-01-21 07:46:20 |
| Message-ID: | 5aa29dd9e29294fcfab7b21ac0f9899be4e1642f.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2025-01-20 at 17:06 -0800, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> On the user side, my main concerns are the same as they've always
> been: 100% confidence that Postgres updates will not corrupt any data
> or cause incorrect query results
I'll add that, while 100% may be a good goal, it hasn't been the
standard in the past. You're talking about a new standard of
immutability starting in 18, and as Peter pointed out, I don't think
Unicode updates are the only thing we need to consider.
My personal opinion is that both positions -- to upgrade Unicode or not
-- are a bit exaggerated. On the one hand, there's no urgency to
updating Unicode; but on the other hand, there's not a huge danger, at
least compared with our historical standards.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-01-21 07:40:18 | Re: pg_createsubscriber TAP test wrapping makes command options hard to read. |