On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > So we don't have any other cases where we warn about possible corruption > except this?
I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you're making. > Also, I will go back to my previous concern, that while I like the fact > we can detect collation changes with ICU, we don't know if ICU > collations change more often than OS collations. We do know that ICU collations can never change behaviorally in a given stable release. Bug fixes are allowed in point releases, but these never change the user-visible behavior of collations. That's very clear, because an upstream Unciode UCA version is used by a given major release of ICU. This upstream data describes the behavior of a collation using a high-level declarative language, that non-programmer experts in natural languages write. ICU versions many different things, in fact. Importantly, it explicitly decouples behavioral issues (user visible sort order -- UCA version) from technical issues (collator implementation details). So, my original point is that that could change, and if that happens we ought to have a plan. But, it won't change unless it really has to. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers