[18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Subject | [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
Date | |
Msg-id | d75d2d0d1d2bd45b2c332c47e3e0a67f0640b49c.camel@j-davis.com Whole thread Raw |
Responses |
Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates
Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |
List | pgsql-hackers |
The IMMUTABLE marker for functions is quite simple on the surface, but could be interpreted a few different ways, and there's some historical baggage that makes it complicated. There are a number of ways in which IMMUTABLE functions can change behavior: 1. Updating or moving to a different OS affects all collations that use the libc provider (other than "C" and "POSIX", which don't actually use libc). LOWER(), INITCAP(), UPPER() and pattern matching are also affected. 2. Updating ICU affects the collations that use the ICU provider. ICU_UNICODE_VERSION(), LOWER(), INITCAP(), UPPER() and pattern matching are also affected. 3. Moving to a different database encoding may affect collations that use the "C" or "POSIX" locales in the libc provider (NB: those locales don't actually use libc). 4. A PG Unicode update may change the results of functions that depend on Unicode. For instance, NORMALIZE(), UNICODE_ASSIGNED(), and UNICODE_VERSION(). Or, if using the new builtin provider's "C.UTF-8" locale in version 17, LOWER(), INITCAP(), UPPER(), and pattern matching (NB: collation itself is not affected -- always code point order). 5. If a well-defined IMMUTABLE function produces the wrong results, we may fix the bug in the next major release. 6. The GUC extra_float_digits can change the results of floating point text output. 7. A UDF may be improperly marked IMMUTABLE. A particularly common variant is a UDF without search_path specified, which is probably not truly IMMUTABLE. (more I'm sure, please add to list...) #1 and #2 have been discussed much more than the rest, but I think it's worthwhile to enumerate the other problems even if the impact is a lot lower. Noah seemed particularly concerned[1] about #4, so I'll start off by discussing that. Here's a brief history (slightly confusing because the PG and Unicode versions are similar numbers): PG13: Unicode 13.0 and NORMALIZE() is first exposed as a SQL function PG15: Unicode updated to 14.0 PG16: Unicode updated to 15.0 PG17: Unicode updated to 15.1, UNICODE_ASSIGNED(), UNICODE_VERSION() and builtin "C.UTF-8" locale are introduced To repeat, these Unicode updates do not affect collation itself, they affect affect NORMALIZE(), UNICODE_VERSION(), and UNICODE_ASSIGNED(). If using the builtin "C.UTF-8" locale, they also affect LOWER(), INITCAP(), UPPER(), and pattern matching. (NB: the builtin collation provider hasn't yet gone through any Unicode update.) There are two alternative philosophies: A. By choosing to use a Unicode-based function, the user has opted in to the Unicode stability guarantees[2], and it's fine to update Unicode occasionally in new major versions as long as we are transparent with the user. B. IMMUTABLE implies some very strict definition of stability, and we should never again update Unicode because it changes the results of IMMUTABLE functions. We've been following (A), and that's the defacto policy today[3][4]. Noah and Laurenz argued[5] that the policy starting in version 18 should be (B). Given that it's a policy decision that affects more than just the builtin collation provider, I'd like to discuss it more broadly outside of that subthread. Regards, Jeff Davis [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240629220857.fb.nmisch@google.com [2] https://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1d178eb1bbd61da1bcfe4a11d6545e9cdcede1d1.camel%40j-davis.com [4] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/564325.1720297161%40sss.pgh.pa.us [5] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/af82b292f13dd234790bc701933e9992ee07d4fa.camel%40cybertec.at
pgsql-hackers by date: