Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-29 Thread Jeremy Schneider
On 11/28/23 2:12 AM, Daniel Verite wrote: > Jeremy Schneider wrote: >> 1) "collation changes are uncommon" (which is relatively correct) >> 2) "most users would rather have ease-of-use than 100% safety, since >> it's uncommon" >> >> And I think this led to the current behavior of issuing a

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-28 Thread Daniel Verite
Jeremy Schneider wrote: > 1) "collation changes are uncommon" (which is relatively correct) > 2) "most users would rather have ease-of-use than 100% safety, since > it's uncommon" > > And I think this led to the current behavior of issuing a warning rather > than an error, There's a tech

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 15:35 -0800, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > For many enterprise customers, if they ask why their database > wouldn't accept connections after an OS upgrade and we explained that > durability & correctness is prioritized over availability, I think > they would agree we're doing th

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Jeremy Schneider
On 11/27/23 12:29 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: >> 2) "most users would rather have ease-of-use than 100% safety, since >> it's uncommon" >> >> And I think this led to the current behavior of issuing a warning >> rather >> than an error > The elevel trade-off is *availability* vs safety, not ease-of-use vs

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 22:37 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > That is, set it to "warnings only", insert a single row into the > table > with an "unlucky" key, set it back to "errors always" and you now > have > a corrupt database, but your setting reflects that it shouldn't be > corrupt. You would

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:30 PM Jeff Davis wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 11:06 -0800, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > > If we want to have a GUC that > > allows warning behavior, I think that's OK but I think it should be > > superuser-only and documented as a "developer" setting similar to > > zero_

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 20:19 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > I forgot to add that the problem will remain a problem until the > day we start keeping our own copy of the ICU library in the source > tree... Another option is for packagers to keep specific ICU versions around for an extended time, and ma

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 11:06 -0800, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > I've been tracking the discussions around collation here on the lists > and I've had a number of conversations with folks working deeply in > this > area inside and outside of AWS, and I was part of the effort to > address > it at AWS sin

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Laurenz Albe
I forgot to add that the problem will remain a problem until the day we start keeping our own copy of the ICU library in the source tree... Yours, Laurenz Albe

Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch

2023-11-27 Thread Laurenz Albe
On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 11:06 -0800, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > First: I'd suggest that a collation version mismatch should cause an > ERROR rather than a WARNING by default. If we want to have a GUC that > allows warning behavior, I think that's OK but I think it should be > superuser-only and docume