Message-ID: <5edb38923b0b23eb643f61807ef772a237ab92cf.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.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
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:06:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: <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>
	 <20240717220326.df.nmisch@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5edb38923b0b23eb643f61807ef772a237ab92cf.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2024-07-17 at 15:03 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> 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.

...

> 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.

You haven't established that any problem actually exists in version 17,
and your arguments have been a moving target throughout this subthread.

I reject the procedural framework that you are trying to establish.
Voting won't change the fact that the "stability within a major
version" that you are arguing against[1] was highlighted as a benefit
in my initial proposal[2] for all reviewers to see.

If you press forward with this approach, I'll use judgement that is
sufficiently deferential to the review process before making any hasty
decisions.

Alternatively, I suggest that you participate in the thread that I
started here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d75d2d0d1d2bd45b2c332c47e3e0a67f0640b=
49c.camel%40j-davis.com

which seems like a more direct (and more complete) path to a resolution
of your concerns. I speak only for myself, but I assure you that I have
an open mind in that discussion, and that I have no intention force a
Unicode update past objections.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240711125040.11.nmisch@google.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ff4c2f2f9c8fc7ca27c1c24ae37ecaeaeaff6=
b53.camel@j-davis.com