| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistent results with libc sorting on Windows |
| Date: | 2023-06-14 23:56:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJX4xeCy53qSyCF2zMUXJu5smFB9FORus8JqQhMkC=1Gw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:50 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
<juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, I think the situation is quite similar to what you describe, with its WIN32 peculiarities. Take for example the attached program, it'll output:
>
> s1 = s2
> s2 = s3
> s1 > s3
> c1 > c2
> c2 > c3
> c1 > c3
>
> As you can see the test for CompareStringEx() is broken, but we get a sane answer with LCMapStringEx().
Given that the documented behaviour is that ".. the sort key produces
the same order as when the source string is used in CompareString or
CompareStringEx"[1], this seems like a reportable bug, unless perhaps
your test program is hiding an error with that default case you have.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/intl/handling-sorting-in-your-applications
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Dunstan | 2023-06-14 23:57:31 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-06-14 23:20:30 | Re: [17] collation provider "builtin" |