Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:03:26 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Message-ID: <20240717220326.df.nmisch@google.com>
References: <20240702230333.8d.nmisch@google.com>
 <db496682c6656ac64433f05f8821e561bbf4d105.camel@j-davis.com>
 <20240704212641.c4.nmisch@google.com>
 <1d178eb1bbd61da1bcfe4a11d6545e9cdcede1d1.camel@j-davis.com>
 <20240706195129.fd@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <564325.1720297161@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20240709010545.8c.nmisch@google.com>
 <39a30bd36198b44ed40da271ef96a72d133c32ba.camel@j-davis.com>
 <20240711125040.11.nmisch@google.com>
 <1908b19c0a3a210935608635cad1b4eeb819c66f.camel@j-davis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1908b19c0a3a210935608635cad1b4eeb819c66f.camel@j-davis.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240717220326.df.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 08:48:46AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-07-11 at 05:50 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > This is still marked as an open item for 17, but you've already
> > > acknowledged[1] that no code changes are necessary in version 17.
> > 
> > Later posts on the thread made that obsolete.  The next step is to
> > settle the
> > question at https://postgr.es/m/20240706195129.fd@rfd.leadboat.com. 
> > If that
> > conclusion entails a remedy, v17 code changes may be part of that
> > remedy.
> 
> This is the first time you've mentioned a code change in version 17. If

That's right.

> you have something in mind, please propose it. However, this feature
> followed the right policies at the time of commit, so there would need
> to be a strong consensus to accept such a change.

If I'm counting the votes right, you and Tom have voted that the feature's
current state is okay, and I and Laurenz have voted that it's not okay.  I
still hope more people will vote, to avoid dealing with the tie.  Daniel,
Peter, and Jeremy, you're all listed as reviewers on commit f69319f.  Are you
willing to vote one way or the other on the question in
https://postgr.es/m/20240706195129.fd@rfd.leadboat.com?

A tie would become a decision against the unreleased behavior.

In the event of a decision against the unreleased behavior, reverting the
feature is the remedy that could proceed without further decision making.