On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:03 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> writes: > > So just to confirm I understand, that implies that the issue is solely > that > > only the utf8 tr_TR set is installed by default on this machine, and the > > iso-8859-9 set is a hard requirement (that is, the test is explicitly > > testing a codepath that generates utf8 results from a non-utf8 source)? > > It's not "explicitly" testing that; the fact that "tr_TR" is treated > as "tr_TR.iso88599" is surely an implementation artifact. (On macOS, > some experimentation shows that "tr_TR" is treated as "tr_TR.UTF-8".) > But yeah, I think it's intentional that we want the codeset translation > path to be exercised here on at least some platforms. >
I idly wonder if there could/should be some tests for the implicit case, some explicitly testing the codeset translation (if possible), and some testing the explicit utf8 case...but I don't know enough about this area to push for anything. > > If in fact Ubuntu doesn't install this locale by default, then is this a > > caveat we should add to developer docs somewhere? It seems odd to me that > > I'd be the only one encountering it, but OTOH I would have thought this a > > fairly vanilla install too... > > Not sure. The lack of prior complaints points to this not being a > common situation. It does seem weird that they'd set things up so > that "tr_TR.utf8" exists but not "tr_TR"; even if that's not an > outright packaging mistake, it seems like a POLA violation from here. > > regards, tom lane > All right. I downloaded an Ubuntu 18.04.3 server VM from OSBoxes, and it had very few locales installed by default...so that wasn't all that helpful. I think at this point I'll just leave this as a mystery, much as I hate that. James
