From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tristan Partin <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On non-Windows, hard depend on uselocale(3) |
Date: | 2025-03-28 16:14:53 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBO71nQE5eR_MxA+CjzjrvUUsmeauDPJbrEF7D7dfHqBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 8:30 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 09.02.25 08:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Checking the status of this thread ...
> >
> > The patches that removed the configure checks for _configthreadlocale(),
> > and related cleanup, have been committed.
> >
> > The original patch to "Tidy up locale thread safety in ECPG library" is
> > still outstanding.
> >
> > Attached is a rebased version, based on the posted v6, with a couple of
> > small fixups from me.
> >
> > I haven't re-reviewed it yet, but from scanning the discussion, it looks
> > close to done.
>
> After staring at this a few more times, I figured it was ready enough
> and I committed it.
It seems that some bf animals such as jackdaw are unhappy with this
commit[0][1]. I also got the same 'undefined reference to symbol
error' locally when building test_json_parser.
Regards,
[0] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=snakefly&dt=2025-03-28%2015%3A29%3A04
[1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jackdaw&dt=2025-03-28%2015%3A30%3A44
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-03-28 16:26:34 | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |
Previous Message | Rafael Thofehrn Castro | 2025-03-28 16:09:21 | Re: Proposal: Progressive explain |