Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e1f4c396-053e-462b-87b6-4cc9d3e709fe@joeconway.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0 (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/18/25 16:30, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:50 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> That approach works only if you sit on Unicode 15.1 *forever*. >> The impracticality of that seems obvious to me. Sooner or later >> you will need to update, and then you are going to suffer pain. > > I completely agree. > >> The short answer is that "immutable" = "doesn't change till the heat >> death of the universe" is a definition that is not useful when >> dealing with this type of data. Other people determine the reality >> that you have to deal with. > > I think that's mostly true because of lack of versioning capabilities, > or crappy versioning practices. glibc, AIUI, just disclaims collation > stability: if you're fool enough to sort anything with one of their > collations, that's on you. To me, that seems like an obviously > user-hostile position, as if it were reasonable to suppose that an > algorithm whose whole purpose is to implement a sort order would not > be used for, uh, sorting. Or at least not any sort of sorting where > you don't immediately throw away the results (and then why did you > bother?). ICU doesn't seem to be entirely stable, either. Yep > But none of that means stability isn't a valuable property. It just > means people have done a bad job implementing it. If we give people > the ability to execute operation X using ICU 15.1 or ICU 16.0, > they're still *eventually* going to have to migrate forward to ICU > 16.0 or some later version, because we're probably not going to keep > ICU 15.1 until the heat death of the universe. But we allow people > to not have that update forced upon them at the same time they're > trying to change other things, and that's pretty darn useful. That's > why extensions have separate versioning from the server, for > instance. +1 Robert articulates my thinking exactly, and much better than I did :-) -- Joe Conway PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: