| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: check_strxfrm_bug() |
| Date: | 2023-04-19 02:31:15 |
| Message-ID: | 0c354ebe-6579-ab75-dda8-890ec3039b6d@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/18/23 9:19 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:52 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:40:14PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> +1 for getting rid of TRUST_STRXFRM.
>
> +1
>
> The situation is not improving fast, and requires hard work to follow
> on each OS. Clearly, mainstreaming ICU is the way to go. libc
> support will always have niche uses, to be compatible with other
> software on the box, but trusting strxfrm doesn't seem to be on the
> cards any time soon.
[RMT hat, personal opinion on RMT]
To be clear, is the proposal to remove both "check_strxfrm_bug" and
"TRUST_STRXFRM"?
Given a bunch of folks who have expertise in this area of code all agree
with removing the above as part of the collation cleanups targeted for
v16, I'm inclined to agree. I don't really see the need for an explicit
RMT action, but based on the consensus this seems OK to add as an open item.
Thanks,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2023-04-19 02:42:08 | Re: Allowing parallel-safe initplans |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-04-19 02:07:13 | Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8 |