Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
Date: 2024-11-12 09:40:52
Message-ID: ce15c4877ae4849a72ff33c0de65a30d2566c366.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 14:52 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 11/11/24 01:27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Here is the patch to update the Unicode data to version 16.0.0.
> >
> > Normally, this would have been routine, but a few months ago there was
> > some debate about how this should be handled. [0]  AFAICT, the consensus
> > was to go ahead with it, but I just wanted to notify it here to be clear.
> >
> > [0]:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/d75d2d0d1d2bd45b2c332c47e3e0a67f0640b49c.camel%40j-davis.com
>
> I ran a check and found that this patch causes changes in upper casing
> of some characters.

I want to reiterate what I said in the above thread:
If that means that indexes on strings using the "builtin" collation
provider need to be reindexed after an upgrade, I am very much against it.

From my experiences in the field, I consider this need to rebuild indexes
one of the greatest current problems for the usability of PostgreSQL.
I dare say that most people would prefer living with an outdated Unicode version.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiro Ikeda 2024-11-12 10:01:47 Fix to increment the index scan counter for the bloom filter index
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-11-12 09:37:04 Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4