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: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-18T15:53:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 10:14 -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> In the long term I think we should figure out how to support newer 
> versions of unicode for the builtin, but in my mind that might
> involve 
> the necessity of supporting multiple versions of unicode such that
> the 
> choice remains to remain on the older one.

What do you think of Tom's argument that waiting to update Unicode is
what creates the problem in the first place?

"by then they might well have instances of the newly-assigned code
points in their database"[1]

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3481161.1742055336@sss.pgh.pa.us

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