| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(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: | 2024-07-24 19:19:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZpQZ1AzP4T0xLzVgub_aErwCcdzU1y0V0MLoYmE+qDcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 3:12 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> In any case, you are correct that Unicode updates could put some
> constraints at risk, including unique indexes, CHECK, and partition
> constraints. But someone has to actually use one of the affected
> functions somewhere, and that's the main distinction that I'm trying to
> draw.
>
> The reason why collation is qualitatively a much bigger problem is
> because there's no obvious indication that you are doing anything
> related to collation at all. A very plain "CREATE TABLE x(t text
> PRIMARY KEY)" is at risk.
Well, I don't know. I agree that collation is a much bigger problem,
but not for that reason. I think a user who is familiar with the
problems in this area will see the danger either way, and one who
isn't, won't. For me, the only real difference is that a unique index
on a text column is a lot more common than one that involves UPPER.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2024-07-24 19:25:37 | Re: CI, macports, darwin version problems |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-07-24 19:12:34 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |