On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers