| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
| Date: | 2024-07-22 17:51:17 |
| Message-ID: | 8e71bddccd68b53c6462fc08581f89979a6167c3.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 19:18 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I understand the difficulty (madness) of discussing every Unicode
> change. If that's unworkable, my preference would be to stick with
> some
> Unicode version and never modify it, ever.
Among all the ways that IMMUTABLE and indexes can go wrong, is there a
reason why you think we should draw such a bright line in this one
case?
>
> Are you proposing a switch that would make PostgreSQL error out if
> somebody wants to use an unassigned code point? That would be an
> option.
You can use a CHECK(UNICODE_ASSIGNED(t)) in version 17, and in version
18 I have a proposal here to make it a database-level option:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a0e85aca6e03042881924c4b31a840a915a9d349.camel@j-davis.com
(Note: the proposal might have a few holes in it, I didn't look at it
lately and nobody has commented yet.)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Isaac Morland | 2024-07-22 17:54:21 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
| Previous Message | Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi | 2024-07-22 17:48:28 | Re: Lock-free compaction. Why not? |