Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16?

From: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16?
Date: 2023-05-03 15:29:14
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/17/23 2:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
>> Is now a reasonable time to check it in and see what breaks? It looks
>> like there are quite a few buildfarm members that specify neither --
>> with-icu nor --without-icu.
> I see you just pinged buildfarm-members again, so I'd think it's
> polite to give people 24 hours or so to deal with that before
> you break things.

[RMT hat]

This thread has fallen silent and the RMT wanted to check in.

The RMT did have a brief discussion on $SUBJECT. We agree with several
points that regardless of if/when ICU becomes the default collation
provider for PostgreSQL, we'll likely have to flush out several issues.
The question is how long we want that period to be before releasing the

Right now, and in absence of critical issues or objections, the RMT is
OK with leaving in ICU as the default collation provider for Beta 1. If
we're to revert back to glibc, we recommend doing this before Beta 2.

However, if there are strong objections to this proposal, please do
state them.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2023-05-03 15:36:10 Re: pg_stat_io not tracking smgrwriteback() is confusing
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-05-03 14:48:20 Re: Rename 'lpp' to 'lp' in heapam.c