On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> writes: >> Hm, I like the idea but I see some issues. > >> Enforcing the BCP47 seems like a good thing to me. I do not see any >> reason to allow input with syntax errors. The issue though is that we do >> not want to break people's databases when they upgrade to PostgreSQL 11. >> What if they have specified the locale in the old non-ICU format or they >> have a bogus value and we then error out on pg_upgrade or pg_restore? > > Well, if PG10 shipped with that restriction in place then it wouldn't > be an issue ;-)
I was proposing that this be treated as an open item for v10; sorry if I was unclear on that. Much like the "ICU locales vs. ICU collations within pg_collation" issue, this seems like the kind of thing that we ought to go out of our way to get right in the *first* version. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
