| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
| Date: | 2024-07-23 20:18:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYqPXAeLgwmroie7utOHL44NA2YFDeaOOt==pMrUvTvKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 3:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> No, I think we *are* winning, because the updates are not "equally
> unstable": with pg_c_utf8, we control when changes happen. We can
> align them with major releases and release-note the differences.
> With libc-based collations, we have zero control and not much
> notification.
OK, that's pretty fair.
> > Do we need to version the new ctype provider?
>
> It would be a version for the underlying Unicode definitions,
> not the provider as such, but perhaps yes. I don't know to what
> extent doing so would satisfy Noah's concern; but if it would do
> so I'd be happy with that answer.
I don't see how we can get by without some kind of versioning here.
It's probably too late to do that for v17, but if we bet either that
(1) we'll never need to change anything for pg_c_utf8 or that (2)
those changes will be so minor that nobody will have a problem, I
think we will lose our bet.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-23 20:28:26 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-07-23 20:07:49 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |