Re: Built-in CTYPE provider - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Date
Msg-id 39a30bd36198b44ed40da271ef96a72d133c32ba.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Built-in CTYPE provider  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2024-07-08 at 18:05 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> I'm thinking about these
> aggravating factors for $SUBJECT:

This is still marked as an open item for 17, but you've already
acknowledged[1] that no code changes are necessary in version 17.
Upgrades of Unicode take an active step from a committer, so it's not a
pressing problem for 18, either.

The idea that you're arguing against is "stability within a PG major
version". There's no new discovery here: it was listed under the
heading of "Benefits" near the top of my initial proposal[2], and known
to all reviewers.

This is not an Open Item for 17, and new policy discussions should not
happen deep in this subthread. Please resolve the Open Item, and feel
free to start a thread about policy changes in 18.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240701230352.2c.nmisch@google.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ff4c2f2f9c8fc7ca27c1c24ae37ecaeaeaff6b53.camel@j-davis.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we work around msvc failing to compile tab-complete.c?
Next
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER