Re: check_strxfrm_bug()

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 03:22:59PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> While studying Jeff's new crop of collation patches I noticed in
>> passing that check_strxfrm_bug() must surely by now be unnecessary.
>> The buffer overrun bugs were fixed a decade ago, and the relevant
>> systems are way out of support. If you're worried that the bugs might
>> come back, then the test is insufficient: modern versions of both OSes
>> have strxfrm_l(), which we aren't checking. In any case, we also
>> completely disable this stuff because of bugs and quality problems in
>> every other known implementation, via TRUST_STRXFRM (or rather the
>> lack of it). So I think it's time to remove that function; please see
>> attached.

> Seems reasonable to me.

+1. I wonder if we should go further and get rid of TRUST_STRXFRM
and the not-so-trivial amount of code around it (pg_strxfrm_enabled
etc). Carrying that indefinitely in the probably-vain hope that
the libraries will become trustworthy seems rather pointless.
Besides, if such a miracle does occur, we can dig the code out
of our git history.

regards, tom lane