On 2019-06-19 21:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Indeed. Here is an updated script and patch.
>
>> committed (to master)
>
> Cool, but should we also put your recalculation script into git, to help
> the next time we decide that we need to update this list? It's
> demonstrat
Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Indeed. Here is an updated script and patch.
> committed (to master)
Cool, but should we also put your recalculation script into git, to help
the next time we decide that we need to update this list? It's
demonstrated to be nontrivial to get it right ;-)
On 2019-06-14 11:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-06-13 15:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think there's an off-by-one bug in your script.
>
> Indeed. Here is an updated script and patch.
committed (to master)
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Developm
On 2019-06-13 15:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think there's an off-by-one bug in your script.
Indeed. Here is an updated script and patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
use strict;
use warnings
I think there's an off-by-one bug in your script. I picked one value at
random to verify -- 0x0BC0. Old:
> - {0x0BC0, 0x0BC0}, {0x0BCD, 0x0BCD}, {0x0C3E, 0x0C40},
New:
> + {0x0BC0, 0x0BC1}, {0x0BCD, 0x0BD0}, {0x0C00, 0x0C01},
the UCD file has:
0BC0;TAMIL VOWEL SIGN
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Any thoughts about applying this as
> a) a bug fix with backpatching
> b) just to master
> c) wait for PG13
> d) it's all wrong?
Well, it's a behavioral change, and we've not gotten field complaints,
so I'm about -0.1 on back-patching. No objection to apply to master
On 2019-06-04 22:58, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> AFAICT, these Unicode definitions haven't changed since that list was
> put in originally around 2006, so I wonder what's going on there.
>
> I have written a script that recomputes that list from the current
> Unicode data. Patch and script are atta
