Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16?

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16?
Date: 2023-02-20 19:41:52
Message-ID: fd86b104f967e28c733167571551652e0d1a7d28.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 15:55 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm confused.  We are not going to try to change existing databases
> to a
> different collation provider during pg_upgrade, are we?

No, certainly not.

I interpreted Pavel's comments as a comparison of ICU and libc in
general and not specific to this patch. Changing providers obviously
requires an index rebuild to be safe.

--
Jeff Davis
PostgreSQL Contributor Team - AWS

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-02-20 19:42:49 Re: meson: Non-feature feature options
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-02-20 19:39:59 Re: Missing cases from SPI_result_code_string()