From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE COLLATION does not sanitize ICU's BCP 47 language tags. Should it? |
Date: | 2017-09-19 21:32:32 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=i7Am9aU18z-aSkL770Ou8HpcHxQ8OXWR+fZ3Dgj=aXw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
>> Hm, I like the idea but I see some issues.
>
>> Enforcing the BCP47 seems like a good thing to me. I do not see any
>> reason to allow input with syntax errors. The issue though is that we do
>> not want to break people's databases when they upgrade to PostgreSQL 11.
>> What if they have specified the locale in the old non-ICU format or they
>> have a bogus value and we then error out on pg_upgrade or pg_restore?
>
> Well, if PG10 shipped with that restriction in place then it wouldn't
> be an issue ;-)
I was proposing that this be treated as an open item for v10; sorry if
I was unclear on that. Much like the "ICU locales vs. ICU collations
within pg_collation" issue, this seems like the kind of thing that we
ought to go out of our way to get right in the *first* version.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-19 21:34:21 | Re: Re: issue: record or row variable cannot be part of multiple-item INTO list |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-19 21:25:31 | Re: Show backtrace when tap tests fail |