On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 9/22/17 12:25, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> I agree. The attached patch should do it.
>>
>> I see one small issue here: You'll now need to set ssup->comparator
>> back to NU
On 9/22/17 12:25, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> I agree. The attached patch should do it.
>
> I see one small issue here: You'll now need to set ssup->comparator
> back to NULL before you return early in the Windows' libc case. That
> way,
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> I agree. The attached patch should do it.
I see one small issue here: You'll now need to set ssup->comparator
back to NULL before you return early in the Windows' libc case. That
way, a shim comparator (that goes through bttextcmp(), in
On 9/21/17 15:21, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>> Attached patch shows what I'm getting at. This is untested, since I
>>> don't use Windows. Proceed with caution.
>>
>> Your analysis makes sense, but the patch doesn't work, because "locale"
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> This is currently a v10 open item, but I think it doesn't qualify for that
> treatment. It's merely an opportunity for optimization, albeit an
> attractively-simple one.
I have withdrawn this as an open item. I'm still hopeful that it can
be
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>> Attached patch shows what I'm getting at. This is untested, since I
>> don't use Windows. Proceed with caution.
>
> Your analysis makes sense, but the patch doesn't work, because "locale"
> is never set before reading it.
It was just fo
On 9/16/17 18:33, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In summary, we're currently attaching the use of SortSupport to the
> wrong thing. We're treating this UTF-16 business as something that
> implies a broad OS/platform restriction, when in fact it should be
> treated as implying a restriction for one partic
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> This is currently a v10 open item, but I think it doesn't qualify for that
> treatment. It's merely an opportunity for optimization, albeit an
> attractively-simple one.
Fair enough.
This is clearly an omission that was made in 41839b7ab, th
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 03:33:53PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In summary, we're currently attaching the use of SortSupport to the
> wrong thing. We're treating this UTF-16 business as something that
> implies a broad OS/platform restriction, when in fact it should be
> treated as implying a re
varstr_sortsupport() only allows Windows to use SortSupport with a
non-C-locale (when the server encoding happens to be UTF-8, which I
assume is the common case). This is because we (quite reasonably)
don't want to have to duplicate the ugly UTF-8 to UTF-16 conversion
hack from varstr_cmp() for the
10 matches
Mail list logo