Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order?

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order?
Date: 2018-10-30 08:06:27
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> 2 окт. 2018 г., в 11:37, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> написал(а):
> Please note that the latest patch set does not apply, so this has been
> switched to commit fest 2018-11, waiting on author for a rebase.

PFA rebased version. I've added LDFLAGS_INTERNAL += $(ICU_LIBS) in libpq, but I'm not entirely sure this is correct way to deal with complaints on ICU functions from libpq linking.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-ICU-as-a-default-collation-provider-rebased-oct-2018.patch application/octet-stream 189.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2018-10-30 08:30:32 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Previous Message Michael Banck 2018-10-30 08:04:56 Re: Installation instructions update (pg_ctl)