On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely agree. Noah is quite right to try to find out whether
> this is still an issue, and I'm glad he's doing it, and I think it's
> very unfortunate that Peter is trying to discourage that research.
Far from it. I am providing constructive feedback.
> If in fact the bug does not still exist in the wild, then Noah's research
> will demonstrate that we have no problem, and we do not need to do
> anything. If it does, then we can decide what to do about that. But
> I have come to value Noah's diligent attitude towards hunting down
> problems in our code base, and I hope Peter (and everyone else) will
> appreciate that attitude as well - or at the very least, stay out of
> the way.
I hope that it goes without saying that I greatly appreciate Noah's
efforts in tracking down this kind of thing. I am not standing in
anyone's way. My intent is to save Noah some work. I imagined that it
might not be clear to him how completely unreasonable it is for a
strxfrm() implementation to have this issue -- it is totally
unreasonable. It is not a portability problem. Clearly Tom agrees with
that view, since he stated that he thinks it's okay to not support a
platform with an abjectly broke strxfrm().
Now we're talking about failing in a sane way, rather than trying to
add band aids, and now the exact extent of the problem seems less
important.
--
Peter Geoghegan
