Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-22 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 9/21/17 17:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> Meanwhile, I see that Peter has posted a fix for the immediate problem. >> I propose that Peter should apply his fix in HEAD and v10, and then > done >> I'll rip out the !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER code

Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/21/17 17:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Meanwhile, I see that Peter has posted a fix for the immediate problem. > I propose that Peter should apply his fix in HEAD and v10, and then done > I'll rip out the !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER code paths in HEAD only. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-21 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:38:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Noah Misch writes: > >> Perhaps it is time to require HAVE_WCSTOMBS and HAVE_TOWLOWER, removing > >> USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER? Every buildfarm fossil has both. > > > +1 ... if nothing else, there's the

Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-21 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Noah Misch writes: >> Perhaps it is time to require HAVE_WCSTOMBS and HAVE_TOWLOWER, removing >> USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER? Every buildfarm fossil has both. > +1 ... if nothing else, there's the problem that untested code is likely > to be broken. You just proved it

Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/21/17 01:29, Noah Misch wrote: > I checked !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER by configuring v10 as follows: > > ./configure -C --prefix=$HOME/sw/nopath/pg10 --enable-debug \ > --enable-cassert --enable-depend --enable-tap-tests --with-libxml \ > --with-gssapi --with-openssl

Re: [HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-21 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch writes: > Perhaps it is time to require HAVE_WCSTOMBS and HAVE_TOWLOWER, removing > USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER? Every buildfarm fossil has both. +1 ... if nothing else, there's the problem that untested code is likely to be broken. You just proved it *is* broken, of

[HACKERS] !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+

2017-09-20 Thread Noah Misch
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 03:33:53PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On a related note, am I the only one that finds it questionable that > str_tolower() has an "#ifdef USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER" block that itself > contains an "#ifdef USE_ICU" block? It seems like those two things > might get conflated