On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 10:12 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > My tentative votes are: > > 1. I think we should seriously consider provider = ICU63. I still > think search-by-collversion is a little too magical, even though it > clearly can be made to work. Of the non-magical systems, I think > encoding the choice of library into the provider name would avoid the > need to add a second confusing "X_version" concept alongside our > existing "X_version" columns in catalogues and DDL syntax, while still > making it super clear what is going on. This would include adding DDL > commands so you can do ALTER DATABASE/COLLATION ... PROVIDER = ICU63 > to make warnings go way.
+1. I wouldn't lose any sleep if we picked a different non-magical option, but I think this is probably my favorite of the explicit-library-version options (though it is close) and I like it better than search-by-collversion. (It's possible that I'm wrong to like it better, but I do.) > 2. I think we should ignore minor versions for now (other than > reporting them in the relevant introspection functions), but not make > any choices that would prevent us from changing our mind about that in > a later release. For example, having two levels of specificity ICU > and ICU68 in the libver-in-provider-name design wouldn't preclude us > from adding support for ICU68_2 later +1. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com