Re: Built-in CTYPE provider

On 7/24/24 11:19, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 03:03:26PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 08:48:46AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> > you have something in mind, please propose it. However, this feature
>> > followed the right policies at the time of commit, so there would need
>> > to be a strong consensus to accept such a change.
>> 
>> If I'm counting the votes right, you and Tom have voted that the feature's
>> current state is okay, and I and Laurenz have voted that it's not okay.  I
>> still hope more people will vote, to avoid dealing with the tie.  Daniel,
>> Peter, and Jeremy, you're all listed as reviewers on commit f69319f.  Are you
>> willing to vote one way or the other on the question in
>> https://postgr.es/m/20240706195129.fd@rfd.leadboat.com?
> 
> The last vote arrived 6 days ago.  So far, we have votes from Jeff, Noah, Tom,
> Daniel, and Laurenz.  I'll keep the voting open for another 24 hours from now
> or 36 hours after the last vote, whichever comes last.  If that schedule is
> too compressed for anyone, do share.


It isn't entirely clear to me exactly what we are voting on.

* If someone votes +1 (current state is ok) -- that is pretty clear.
* But if someone votes -1 (current state is not ok?) what does that mean
   in practice?
   - a revert?
   - we hold shipping 17 until we get consensus (via some plan or
     mitigation or whatever)?
   - something else?

In any case, I am a hard -1 against reverting. +0.5 on "current state is 
ok", and +1 on "current state is ok with agreement on what to do in 18"

-- 
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com