Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Date
Msg-id 1136838592.3064.6.camel@swithin
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > I don't know. Reading that code just makes my head spin ...
> 
> Yeah, too many ifdefs :-(.  But I suppose that the initial
> "#ifdef LOCALE_ENVIRON_REQUIRED" block is not compiled on sane
> platforms, meaning that the first code in the routine is the
> unconditional
>     if (! setlocale(LC_ALL, ""))
>     setlocale_failure = TRUE;
> 


*doh!* I had misread that. Now I see.

On Windows that pretty much gives the game away.



> 
> > I'm just about out of ideas and right out of time to spend on this.
> 
> We could just file a Perl bug report and wait for them to fix it.
> 


What's the data risk?

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Waso Training Center"
Date:
Subject: พนักงานธุรการยุคใหม่ Modern Office Management System
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)