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 df8fa44839d5dad944414b4a24c84bed718a4f01.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2025-03-18 at 21:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I could not disagree more strongly with the idea that this
> problem
> is 99% solved. That doesn't seem remotely true to me. I'm not sure
> the
> problem is 1% solved.

If we compare the following two problems:

  A. With glibc or ICU, every text index, including primary keys, are
highly vulnerable to inconsistencies after an OS upgrade, even if
there's no Postgres upgrade; vs.

  B. With the builtin provider, only expression indexes and a few other
things are vulnerable, only during a major version upgrade, and mostly
(but not entirely) when using recently-assigned Cased letters.

To me, problem A seems about 100 times worse than B almost any way I
can imagine measuring it: number of objects vulnerable, severity of the
problem when it does happen, likelihood of a vulnerable object having
an actual problem, etc. If you disagree, I'd like to hear more.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: pg_recvlogical requires -d but not described on the documentation
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Release freeze April 8