On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All,
>
> Changed the thread name (we're no longer talking about release
> notes...).
>
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Oleg Bartunov writes:
> > > Should we start thinking about ICU ?
> >
> > Isn't it still true that ICU fails
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Having to figure out how each and every stdlib does versioning doesn't
> sound fun, I certainly agree with you there, but it hardly seems
> impossible. What we need, even if we look to move to ICU, is a place to
> remember that version info
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > If we're going to talk about minimum requirements, I'd like to argue
> > that we require whatever system we're using to have versioning (which
> > glibc currently lacks, as I understand it...) to
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If we're going to talk about minimum requirements, I'd like to argue
> that we require whatever system we're using to have versioning (which
> glibc currently lacks, as I understand it...) to avoid the risk that
> indexes will become corrupt
All,
Changed the thread name (we're no longer talking about release
notes...).
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov writes:
> > Should we start thinking about ICU ?
>
> Isn't it still true that ICU fails to meet our minimum requirements?
> That would include (a) working with t
