| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthew Kelly <mkelly(at)tripadvisor(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matthew Spilich <mspilich(at)tripadvisor(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Collations and Replication; Next Steps |
| Date: | 2014-09-18 00:26:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRofNpDzVFTDqEgGxFn=o=fphTkL=zQGbuHmQHnL3mHJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Of course, there's also the question of whether ICU would have similar
> issues. You're assuming that they *don't* whack the collation order
> around in minor releases, or at least that they do so to some lesser
> degree than glibc, but is that actually true?
No, but they're disciplined about it. They clearly do versioning
properly, which seems to not be the case with glibc, based on Peter's
remarks: http://userguide.icu-project.org/collation/architecture#TOC-Versioning
(they talk about a 32-bit identifier here).
PostgreSQL's problems in this area are exactly the same as every other
database system's (the Unicode consortium anticipated these problems
too, and as I pointed out have commented on these problems.). A bunch
of prominent database systems are listed as using ICU.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-18 00:40:51 | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-18 00:22:48 | Re: Immediate standby promotion |