Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:29:58 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Message-ID: <20240726112958.06.nmisch@google.com>
References: <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>
 <20240724151913.5d.nmisch@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240724151913.5d.nmisch@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240726112958.06.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 08:19:13AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 03:03:26PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > vote one way or the other on the question in
> > https://postgr.es/m/20240706195129.fd@rfd.leadboat.com?
> 
> I'll keep the voting open for another 24 hours from now
> or 36 hours after the last vote, whichever comes last.

I count 4.5 or 5 votes for "okay" and 2 votes for "not okay".  I've moved the
open item to "Non-bugs".

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:06:43PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> You haven't established that any problem actually exists in version 17,
> and your arguments have been a moving target throughout this subthread.

I can understand that experience of yours.  It wasn't my intent to make a
moving target.  To be candid, I entered the thread with no doubts that you'd
agree with the problem.  When you and Tom instead shared a different view, I
switched to pursuing the votes to recognize the problem.  (Voting then held
that pg_c_utf8 is okay as-is.)

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:52:44AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 07:00 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Given all the messages on this thread, if the feature remains in
> > PostgreSQL, I
> > advise you to be ready to tolerate PostgreSQL "routinely updating the
> > built-in
> > provider to adopt any changes that Unicode makes".
> 
> You mean messages from me, like:
> 
>   * "I have no intention force a Unicode update" [1]
>   * "While nothing needs to be changed for 17, I agree that we may need
> to be careful in future releases not to break things." [2]
>   * "...you are right that we may need to freeze Unicode updates or be
> more precise about versioning..." [2]
>   * "If you are proposing that Unicode updates should not be performed
> if they affect the results of any IMMUTABLE function...I am neither
> endorsing nor opposing..." [3]
> 
> ?

Those, plus all the other messages.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 08:50:41AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Consider:
> 
> a. Some user creates an expression index on NORMALIZE(); vs.
> b. Some user chooses the builtin "C.UTF-8" locale and creates a partial
> index with a predicate like "string ~ '[[:alpha:]]'" (or an expression
> index on LOWER())
> 
> Both cases create a risk if we update Unicode in some future version.
> Why are you unconcerned about case (a), but highly concerned about case
> (b)?

I am not unconcerned about (a), but the v17 beta process gave an opportunity
to do something about (b) that it didn't give for (a).  Also, I have never
handled a user report involving NORMALIZE().  I have handled user reports
around regexp index inconsistency, e.g. the one at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNH94tmpUus&t=1490s