On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 13:11:18 -0800 Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 20:43 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > I see. Do we provide any suggested next steps for users to assess > > the > > potentially-affected relations? > > I don't know exactly where we should document it, but I've attached a > SQL file that demonstrates what can happen for a PG17->PG18 upgrade, > assuming that we've updated Unicode to 16.0.0 in PG18. > > The change in Unicode that I'm focusing on is the addition of U+A7DC, > which is unassigned in Unicode 15.1 and assigned in Unicode 16, which > lowercases to U+019B. The examples assume that the user is using > unassigned code points in PG17/Unicode15.1 and the PG_C_UTF8 > collation. It seems the consensus is to update unicode in core... FWIW, I'm still in favor of leaving it alone because ICU is there for when I need up-to-date unicode versions. From my perspective, the whole point of the builtin collation was to one option that avoids these problems that come with updating both ICU and glibc. So I guess the main point of the builtin provider just that it's faster than ICU? -Jeremy
