> On 9 September 2016 at 00:19, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 9/8/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is a problem, if ICU won't guarantee cross-version compatibility,
>>> because it destroys the argument that moving to ICU would offer us
>>> collation behavior stability.
>>
>> It would offer a significant upgrade over the current situation.
>>
>> First, it offers stability inside the same version. Whereas glibc might
>> change a collation in a minor upgrade, ICU won't do that. And the
>> postgres binary is bound to a major version of ICU by the soname (which
>> changes with every major release). So this would avoid the situation
>> that a simple OS update could break collations.
>
> It also lets *users* and PostgreSQL-specific distributors bundle ICU
> and get stable collations. We can't exactly bundle glibc.
I would like to know the fate of community RPMs because if PostgreSQL
does not include ICU source, the effort of integrating ICU is totally
up to packagers.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp