Re: Windows buildfarm animals are still not happy with abbreviated keys patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Windows buildfarm animals are still not happy with abbreviated keys patch
Date: 2015-01-26 19:05:49
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaaMZzbf20k=XsLiNkOGV7NO=JAPnYqy_+SUCDLzu5vOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-01-26 19:06:05 Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2015-01-26 19:05:03 Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review