Re: check_strxfrm_bug()

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:40:14PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> +1. I wonder if we should go further and get rid of TRUST_STRXFRM
>> and the not-so-trivial amount of code around it (pg_strxfrm_enabled
>> etc). Carrying that indefinitely in the probably-vain hope that
>> the libraries will become trustworthy seems rather pointless.
>> Besides, if such a miracle does occur, we can dig the code out
>> of our git history.
>
> +1 for getting rid of TRUST_STRXFRM.
>
> ICU-based collations (which aren't affected by TRUST_STRXFRM) are
> becoming the de facto standard (possibly even the de jure standard).
> So even if we thought that the situation with strxfrm() had improved,
> we'd still have little motivation to do anything about it.

Makes sense to do some cleanup now as this is new in the tree.
Perhaps somebody from the RMT would like to comment?

FYI, Jeff has also posted patches to replace this CFLAGS with a GUC:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6ec4ad7f93f255dbb885da0a664d9c77ed4872c4.camel@j-davis.com
--
Michael