On 09/19/2017 11:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, if PG10 shipped with that restriction in place then it wouldn't
>> be an issue ;-)
>
> I was proposing that this be treated as an open item for v10; sorry if
> I was unclear on that. Much like the "ICU locales vs. ICU collations
> within pg_collation" issue, this seems like the kind of thing that we
> ought to go out of our way to get right in the *first* version.
If people think it is possible to get this done in time for PostgreSQL
10 and it does not break anything on older version of ICU (or the
migration from older versions) I am all for it.
Andreas
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
