> 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 Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers