| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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: | 2024-07-19 19:41:49 |
| Message-ID: | 924c73bdc583d5faa80b6912dd5415f1f2e30656.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 21:06 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Perhaps I should moderate my statement: if a change affects only a
> newly
> introduced code point (which is unlikely to be used in a database),
> and we
> think that the change is very important, we could consider applying
> it.
> But that should be carefully considered; I am against blindly
> following the
> changes in Unicode.
That sounds reasonable.
I propose that, going forward, we take more care with Unicode updates:
assess the impact, provide time for comments, and consider possible
mitigations. In other words, it would be reviewed like any other
change.
Ideally, some new developments would make it less worrisome, and
Unicode updates could become more routine. I have some ideas, which I
can propose in separate threads. But for now, I don't see a reason to
rush Unicode updates.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-19 19:46:28 | Re: DSO Terms Galore |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-19 19:37:08 | Re: recovery modules |