On 18.03.26 19:21, Daniel Verite wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Ok, committed.
>>
>> Thoughts on backpatching? Seems like a straightforward bug fix.
>
> Thanks for pushing the patch!
> I thought it was not a candidate for backpatching because it's
> a collation change.
> Now, to have a problem with that change in a minor release,
> a user would need to have an ICU collation with a rule containing
> "[strength N]", where N<>3, even though it was ineffective (so
> either the user did not notice or they did but kept it
> nonetheless). Users who reported the problem hoped for a backpatch,
> but we cannot say there is zero risk with that change in a minor
> release. Personally I'm +0.
Ok, let's not then.
