Horton

Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-19T21:47:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, 2025-03-19 at 14:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> I strongly believe users want to control what happens, not have
> the system try to fix it for them automatically without their
> knowledge.

Do you have a sketch of what the ideal Unicode version management
experience might look like? Very high level, like "this is what happens
by default during an upgrade" and "this is how a user discovers that
that they might want to update Uniocde", etc.

What ways can/should we nudge users to update more quickly, if at all,
so that they are less likely to have problems with newly-assigned code
points?

And, if possible, how we might extend this user experience to libc or
ICU updates?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Commits

  1. pg_upgrade: Fix memory leak in check_for_unicode_update().

  2. pg_upgrade check for Unicode-dependent relations.

  3. Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0