Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
Date
Msg-id 9826612005cf9d350c716755dcb79bfd2fe53cdd.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
List pgsql-hackers
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.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Interrupts vs signals
Next
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: Expanding HOT updates for expression and partial indexes