Could be a rounding issue. What happens if you try this instead:?
eval_pv((safe_version <= 2.08 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
Alternatively, what happens if we make safe_version a double rather than a float?
(If nothing else works we might have to fall back on a lexical comparison)
cheers
andrew
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
It seems that the check in src/pl/plperl/plperl.c
eval_pv((safe_version < 2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
is not working quite as expected (CVS HEAD from today):
I have Safe.pm at version 2.09, yet any plperl function I run fails with :
ERROR: error from function: trusted perl functions disabled - please upgrade perl Safe module to at least 2.09 at (eval 4) line 1.
Just to be sure I amended the test code to :
elog(INFO, "Safe version = %f", safe_version); eval_pv((safe_version < 2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
and I see :
INFO: Safe version = 2.090000
(Followed by the error)
I confess some puzzlement - as the code *looks* like it should work! The platform is Linux 2.4.22 glibc 2.3.2, perl 5.8.0 (Patched Redhat 9)
regards
Mark
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
