| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |
| Date: | 2023-10-06 17:22:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4341fa42069c5b9098cb79e394d564f7fe45796a.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2023-10-06 at 09:58 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If you want to be rigid about it, you also need to consider whether
> the
> Unicode version used by the ICU library in use matches the one used
> by
> the in-core tables.
What problem are you concerned about here? I thought about it and I
didn't see an obvious issue.
If the ICU unicode version is ahead of the Postgres unicode version,
and no unassigned code points are used according to the Postgres
version, then there's no problem.
And in the other direction, there might be some code points that are
assigned according to the postgres unicode version but unassigned
according to the ICU version. But that would be tracked by the
collation version as you pointed out earlier, so upgrading ICU would be
like any other ICU upgrade (with the same risks). Right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-06 17:33:06 | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-10-06 16:49:05 | Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables |