Horton

Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2024-07-23T20:28:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 3:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Do we need to version the new ctype provider?

>> It would be a version for the underlying Unicode definitions,
>> not the provider as such, but perhaps yes.  I don't know to what
>> extent doing so would satisfy Noah's concern; but if it would do
>> so I'd be happy with that answer.

> I don't see how we can get by without some kind of versioning here.
> It's probably too late to do that for v17,

Why?  If we agree that that's the way forward, we could certainly
stick some collversion other than "1" into pg_c_utf8's pg_collation
entry.  There's already been one v17 catversion bump since beta2
(716bd12d2), so another one is basically free.

			regards, tom lane