Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:19:13 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Message-ID: <20240724151913.5d.nmisch@google.com>
References: <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>
 <20240717220326.df.nmisch@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20240717220326.df.nmisch@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240724151913.5d.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 03:03:26PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> 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?

The last vote arrived 6 days ago.  So far, we have votes from Jeff, Noah, Tom,
Daniel, and Laurenz.  I'll keep the voting open for another 24 hours from now
or 36 hours after the last vote, whichever comes last.  If that schedule is
too compressed for anyone, do share.