On Tuesday 06 of October 2015 17:59:23 Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 10/06/2015 05:45 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> > >> wrote: > >>> Isn't this arguably a Fedora regression? What did they change in F23 to > >>> make > >>> it fail? I note that F23 is still in Beta. > >> Maybe, but it's pretty unfriendly for us to complain about a library > >> issue, if it is one, by failing an Assert(). People with > >> non-assert-enabled builds will just get wrong answers. Yuck. > >> > >> Thinking about how this could happen, I believe that one possibility > >> is that there are two strings A and B and a locale L such that > >> strcoll_l(A, B, L) and memcmp(strxfrm(A, L), strxfrm(B, L)) disagree > >> (that is, the results are of different sign, or one is zero and the > >> other is not). > > I wonder if Glibc bug 18589 is relevant. Bug 18934 says "Note that > > these unittests pass with glibc-2.21 but fail with 2.22 and current > > git due to bug 18589 which points to a broken change in the collate > > algorithm that needs to be reverted first." Hungarian is mentioned. > > Doesn't Fedora 23 include glibc-2.22? Is it possible that that bug > > affects strcoll but not strxfrm? > > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589 > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18934 > > > > > Yes, it's 2.22: > > [vagrant@localhost ~ ]$ rpm -q -a | grep glibc > glibc-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64 > glibc-devel-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64 > glibc-common-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64 > glibc-headers-2.22-3.fc23.x86_64 > > cheers > > andrew
Yup, broken glibc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269895 Pavel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers