Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nyfGK-00056S-2c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 19:53:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nyfGI-0006DC-Sh for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 19:53:10 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nyfGI-0006D2-JD for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 19:53:10 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nyfGG-0005OO-7Z for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 19:53:10 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 257Jr5Zk1311648; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:53:05 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Thomas Munro , Jeremy Schneider , Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Collation version tracking for macOS In-reply-to: References: <381977b1-0898-cb6f-a427-3b5d873e81bd@enterprisedb.com> <231072.1654273317@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1874de62-6bec-4bc1-1d14-0a2730b125da@ardentperf.com> <366234.1654289888@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 07 Jun 2022 15:36:45 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1311646.1654631585.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 15:53:05 -0400 Message-ID: <1311647.1654631585@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that you're basically sticking your > head in the sand here. You wrote: No, I quite agree that we have a problem. What I don't agree is that issuing a lot of false-positive warnings is a solution. That will just condition people to ignore the warnings, and then when their platform really does change behavior, they're still screwed. If we could *accurately* report collation behavioral changes, I'd be all for that. Rod's idea upthread is certainly way too simplistic, but could we build a set of test cases that do detect known changes in collation behaviors? We'd be shooting at a moving target; but even if we're late in noticing that platform X changed the behavior of collation Y, we could help users who run in the problem afterwards. regards, tom lane