Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 03:34:06PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 14:33 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> +               report_status(PG_WARNING, "warning");
>> +               pg_log(PG_WARNING, "Your installation contains
>> relations that may be affected by a new version of Unicode.\n"
>> +                          "A list of potentially-affected relations
>> is in the file:\n"
>> +                          "    %s", report.path);
>> 
>> This may have been discussed upthread, but is a warning enough?  That
>> seems
>> like something that could very easily be missed.
> 
> There can be false positives, because even if such an expression index
> exists, it's often not an actual problem. Do we want to stop an upgrade
> from happening in that case? I doubt it, but if so, we'd need some kind
> of option to bypass it.

I see.  Do we provide any suggested next steps for users to assess the
potentially-affected relations?

-- 
nathan