On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 09:34:42AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 11:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:26 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> > > wrote: > > > I disagree with that. We should put ourselves into the position to > > > adopt new Unicode versions without fear. Similar to updates to > > > time > > > zones, snowball, etc. > > > > > > We can't be discussing the merits of the Unicode update every year. > > > That would be madness. > > > > Yeah, I agree with that 100%. > > It's hard for me to argue; that was my reasoning during development. > > But Noah seems to have a very strong opinion on this matter: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240629220857.fb.nmisch%40google.com > > and I thought this thread would be a better opportunity for him to > express it. Noah?
Long-term, we should handle this like Oracle, SQL Server, and DB2 do: https://postgr.es/m/CA+fnDAbmn2d5tzZsj-4wmD0jApHTsg_zGWUpteb=omssx5r...@mail.gmail.com Short-term, we should remedy the step backward that pg_c_utf8 has taken: https://postgr.es/m/20240718233908.52.nmi...@google.com https://postgr.es/m/486d71991a3f80ec1c47e1bd7931e2ef3627b6b3.ca...@cybertec.at $SUBJECT has proposed remedy "take more care with Unicode updates". If one wanted to pursue that, it should get more specific, by giving one or both of: (a) principles for deciding whether a Unicode update is okay (b) examples of past Unicode release changes and whether PostgreSQL should adopt a future Unicode version making a similar change That said, I'm not aware of an (a) or (b) likely to create an attractive compromise between the "index scan agrees with seqscan after pg_upgrade" goal (https://postgr.es/m/20240706195129...@rfd.leadboat.com) and the "don't freeze Unicode data" goal (https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZRpOFVmQWKEXHdcKj9AFLbXT5ouwtXa58J=3ydlp0...@mail.gmail.com). The "long-term" above would satisfy both goals. If it were me, I would abandon the "more care" proposal.
