From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ICU integration |
Date: | 2017-02-21 00:05:32 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=65trVDYUuPjF8rm9CEbirpK=dvihW5=xRjHs18EPo2w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> So we don't have any other cases where we warn about possible corruption
> except this?
I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you're making.
> Also, I will go back to my previous concern, that while I like the fact
> we can detect collation changes with ICU, we don't know if ICU
> collations change more often than OS collations.
We do know that ICU collations can never change behaviorally in a
given stable release. Bug fixes are allowed in point releases, but
these never change the user-visible behavior of collations. That's
very clear, because an upstream Unciode UCA version is used by a given
major release of ICU. This upstream data describes the behavior of a
collation using a high-level declarative language, that non-programmer
experts in natural languages write.
ICU versions many different things, in fact. Importantly, it
explicitly decouples behavioral issues (user visible sort order -- UCA
version) from technical issues (collator implementation details). So,
my original point is that that could change, and if that happens we
ought to have a plan. But, it won't change unless it really has to.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-02-21 00:27:53 | Re: Multivariate statistics and expression indexes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-02-20 23:51:47 | Re: ICU integration |