On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:09 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> As discussed over on -hackers[1], I think it's worth pursuing that
> though. FWIW I've proposed locale versioning for FreeBSD's libc[2].
> The reason I haven't gone further with that yet even though the code
> change has been accepted in principle by FreeBSD reviewers is because
> I got stuck on the question of how exactly to model the versions. If,
> say, just Turkish changes, I don't want to be rebuilding my French
> indexes, which means that I don't think you can use the CLDR version
> string.
The ICU versions can handle that, though. Importantly, ICU decouples
implementation details from actual versioning.
I must say that I am not enthused about the idea of trying to get libc
people of any variety on board. I don't have an objection to it if it
can work for FreeBSD, but I don't think it can scale. ICU is built
around a culture that takes our concerns seriously already, which is
what it boils down to. Also, we can imagine a package manager taking
it upon themselves to vendor their own ICU, with platform-specific
guarantees around stability. That seems like a nice option to have, at
least.
> There is also the question of how PostgreSQL should model versions,
> and as I've argued in [1], I think we should track them at the level
> of database object dependencies.
I think you're probably right about that.
> I'm hoping to reopen this can of worms for PostgreSQL 13 (and the
> corresponding support could in theory be in FreeBSD 13... coincidence,
> or a sign!?)
Maybe we should do what Oracle did, and call it PostgreSQL 18c
instead. Actually, any number that isn't of interest to numerologists
will do.
> Unfortunately you can't use ICU collations as a database default yet
> (though there was some WIP code[3]), so ICU only saves you from
> versioning problems if you explicitly set collations for columns or
> expressions, and even then the version tracking is currently just a
> warning that you clear manually with a command, not a mechanism that
> really tracks which database objects were last rebuilt/validated with
> a given version.
Yes, that does seem like a big remaining weakness.
--
Peter Geoghegan