Re: Make uselocale protection more consistent

On 27.06.23 17:02, Tristan Partin wrote:
> This is a patch which implements an issue discussed in bug #17946[0]. It
> doesn't fix the overarching issue of the bug, but merely a consistency
> issue which was found while analyzing code by Heikki. I had originally
> submitted the patch within that thread, but for visibility and the
> purposes of the commitfest, I have re-sent it in its own thread.
>
> [0]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/49dfcad8-90fa-8577-008f-d142e61af46b@iki.fi

I notice that HAVE_USELOCALE was introduced much later than
HAVE_LOCALE_T, and at the time the code was already using uselocale(),
so perhaps the introduction of HAVE_USELOCALE was unnecessary and should
be reverted.

I think it would be better to keep HAVE_LOCALE_T as encompassing any of
the various locale_t-using functions, rather than using HAVE_USELOCALE
as a proxy for them. Otherwise you create weird situations like having
#ifdef HAVE_WCSTOMBS_L inside #ifdef HAVE_USELOCALE, which doesn't make
sense, I think.