On 12/5/22 12:41, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 16:12 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
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.
As I understand it, this is #2 in your previous list?
Can we put the naming of the provider into the hands of the user, e.g.:
CREATE COLLATION PROVIDER icu63 TYPE icu
AS '/path/to/libicui18n.so.63', '/path/to/libicuuc.so.63';
In this model, icu would be a "provider kind" and icu63 would be the
specific provider, which is named by the user.
That seems like the least magical approach, to me. We need an ICU
library; the administrator gives us one that looks like ICU; and we're
happy.
+1
I like this. The provider kind defines which path we take in our code,
and the specific library unambiguously defines a specific collation
behavior (I think, ignoring bugs?)
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
