| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 'Sandro Santilli' <strk(at)kbt(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |
| Date: | 2023-04-21 20:50:41 |
| Message-ID: | b61cbd7b86c9b18c8b6b871ab8000105218b3efa.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2023-04-21 at 16:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe this means we are not ready to do ICU-by-default in v16.
> It certainly feels like there might be more here than we want to
> start designing post-feature-freeze.
I don't see how punting to the next release helps. If the CREATE
DATABASE syntax (and similar issues for createdb and initdb) in v15 is
just too confusing, and we can't find a remedy for v16, then we
probably won't find a remedy for v17 either.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2023-04-21 21:08:59 | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-04-21 20:45:50 | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |