Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
| От | Andrew Dunstan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1136838592.3064.6.camel@swithin обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > I don't know. Reading that code just makes my head spin ... > > Yeah, too many ifdefs :-(. But I suppose that the initial > "#ifdef LOCALE_ENVIRON_REQUIRED" block is not compiled on sane > platforms, meaning that the first code in the routine is the > unconditional > if (! setlocale(LC_ALL, "")) > setlocale_failure = TRUE; > *doh!* I had misread that. Now I see. On Windows that pretty much gives the game away. > > > I'm just about out of ideas and right out of time to spend on this. > > We could just file a Perl bug report and wait for them to fix it. > What's the data risk? cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: