Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2024-07-23T20:39:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > pg_collation.collversion has been used so far for the sort part > of the collations. Hmm, we haven't particularly drawn a distinction between sort-related and not-sort-related aspects of collation versions AFAIK. Perhaps it'd be appropriate to do so, and I agree that there's not time to design such a thing for v17. But pg_c_utf8 might be the only case where we could do anything other than advance those versions in lockstep. I doubt we have enough insight into the behaviors of other providers to say confidently that an update affects only one side of their behavior. regards, tom lane