> On 9 September 2016 at 00:19, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 9/8/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is a problem, if ICU won't guarantee cross-version compatibility,
>>> because it destroys the argument that moving to ICU would offer us
>>> collation behavior stability.
>> It would offer a significant upgrade over the current situation.
>> First, it offers stability inside the same version.  Whereas glibc might
>> change a collation in a minor upgrade, ICU won't do that.  And the
>> postgres binary is bound to a major version of ICU by the soname (which
>> changes with every major release).  So this would avoid the situation
>> that a simple OS update could break collations.
> It also lets *users* and PostgreSQL-specific distributors bundle ICU
> and get stable collations. We can't exactly bundle glibc.

I would like to know the fate of community RPMs because if PostgreSQL
does not include ICU source, the effort of integrating ICU is totally
up to packagers.

Best regards,
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to