On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 10:12 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> My tentative votes are:
>
> 1. I think we should seriously consider provider = ICU63. I still
> think search-by-collversion is a little too magical, even though it
> clearly can be made to work. Of the non-magical systems, I think
> encoding the choice of library into the provider name would avoid the
> need to add a second confusing "X_version" concept alongside our
> existing "X_version" columns in catalogues and DDL syntax, while still
> making it super clear what is going on. This would include adding DDL
> commands so you can do ALTER DATABASE/COLLATION ... PROVIDER = ICU63
> to make warnings go way.
+1. I wouldn't lose any sleep if we picked a different non-magical
option, but I think this is probably my favorite of the
explicit-library-version options (though it is close) and I like it
better than search-by-collversion.
(It's possible that I'm wrong to like it better, but I do.)
> 2. I think we should ignore minor versions for now (other than
> reporting them in the relevant introspection functions), but not make
> any choices that would prevent us from changing our mind about that in
> a later release. For example, having two levels of specificity ICU
> and ICU68 in the libver-in-provider-name design wouldn't preclude us
> from adding support for ICU68_2 later
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
