Re: Built-in CTYPE provider

On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 15:03 -0700, 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.

...

> A tie would become a decision against the unreleased behavior.

...

> In the event of a decision against the unreleased behavior, reverting
> the
> feature is the remedy that could proceed without further decision
> making.

You haven't established that any problem actually exists in version 17,
and your arguments have been a moving target throughout this subthread.

I reject the procedural framework that you are trying to establish.
Voting won't change the fact that the "stability within a major
version" that you are arguing against[1] was highlighted as a benefit
in my initial proposal[2] for all reviewers to see.

If you press forward with this approach, I'll use judgement that is
sufficiently deferential to the review process before making any hasty
decisions.

Alternatively, I suggest that you participate in the thread that I
started here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d75d2d0d1d2bd45b2c332c47e3e0a67f0640b49c.camel%40j-davis.com

which seems like a more direct (and more complete) path to a resolution
of your concerns. I speak only for myself, but I assure you that I have
an open mind in that discussion, and that I have no intention force a
Unicode update past objections.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240711125040.11.nmisch@google.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ff4c2f2f9c8fc7ca27c1c24ae37ecaeaeaff6b53.camel@j-davis.com