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 1nxEN4-0006by-9i for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 20:58:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nxEN3-0002GX-6H for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 20:58:13 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nxEN2-0002GO-T9 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 20:58:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nxEN0-00033I-MK for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 20:58:11 +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 253Kw8bD366235; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:58:08 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: 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> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:17:19 +1200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <366233.1654289888.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 16:58:08 -0400 Message-ID: <366234.1654289888@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 7:13 AM Jeremy Schneider > wrote: >> It feels to me like we're still not really thinking clearly about this >> within the PG community, and that the seriousness of this issue is not >> fully understood. > FWIW A couple of us tried quite hard to make smarter warnings, and > that thread and others discussed a lot of those topics, like the > relevance to constraints and so forth. I think the real problem here is that the underlying software mostly doesn't take this issue seriously. Unfortunately, that leads one to the conclusion that we need to maintain our own collation code and data (e.g., our own fork of ICU), and that isn't happening. Unlike say Oracle, we do not have the manpower; nor do we want to bloat our code base that much. Short of maintaining our own fork, ranting about the imperfections of the situation is a waste of time. regards, tom lane