Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 2:27 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > Those who are now trying to make the builtin collation provider have
> > properties that it does not have and was not intended to have when it
> > was added, they would need to arrange the work to make it have those
> > properties if they want them, rather than insist that progress in
> > other
> > areas must stop because they are content with the current state.
>
> It does feel like the goalposts are moving. That's not necessarily bad
> by itself -- our expectations should go up. But the way it's happening
> in this thread makes it feel like new obligations are being put on the
> people already working on collation improvements, in particular Peter
> and I.

Honestly, I'm confused as to why Peter hasn't committed the Unicode
update a long time ago at this point. Nobody has alleged that the
stability guarantees provided by the builtin collation provider are
(a) worse than any of other other providers or (b) worse than what was
documented. And nobody has refuted the argument that refusing to
update the Unicode tables will cause other problems (such as not
knowing what to do with new code points that are added in the other
places where those tables are used). People who aren't doing the work
to improve the infrastructure don't get to hold the longstanding
process hostage.

None of the above means that I wouldn't like things to be better in
this area; this is a huge source of pain and I would obviously like
all of kinds of amazing things, preferably done by other people with
no real thought or work required on my part. But I'd like that in lots
of areas of PostgreSQL and lots of areas of my life in general, and I
understand that it's an unreasonable expectation.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com