Re: Windows buildfarm animals are still not happy with abbreviated keys patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Windows buildfarm animals are still not happy with abbreviated keys patch
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaaMZzbf20k=XsLiNkOGV7NO=JAPnYqy_+SUCDLzu5vOQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Windows buildfarm animals are still not happy with abbreviated keys patch  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Windows buildfarm animals are still not happy with abbreviated keys patch
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> In other words, even on systems that don't HAVE_LOCALE_T, we still
> have to support the default collation and the C collation, and they
> have to behave differently.  There's no way to make that work using
> only strxfrm(), because nothing gets passed to that function to tell
> it which of those two things it is supposed to do.
>
> Now even if the above were not an issue, for example because we
> dropped support for systems where !HAVE_LOCALE_T, I think it would be
> poor form to depend on strxfrm_l() to behave like memcpy() where we
> could just as easily call memcpy() and be *sure* that it was going to
> do what we wanted.  Much of writing good code is figuring out what
> could go wrong and then figuring out how to prevent it, and relying on
> strxfrm_l() would be an unnecessary risk regardless.  Given the
> existence of !HAVE_LOCALE_T systems, it's just plain broken.

Now that these issues are fixed and the buildfarm is green again, I'm
going to try re-enabling this optimization on Windows.  My working
theory is that disabling that categorically was a mis-diagnosis of the
real problem, and that now that the issues mentioned above are cleaned
up, it'll just work.  That might not be right, but I think it's worth
a try.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review