On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If we need to work around brain-dead isupper() tests, maybe the best >>> thing is to implement two versions of the loop: >>> >>> if (encoding is single byte) >>> ... loop as it stands ... >>> else >>> ... loop without the "else if" part > >> That seems like a clear improvement. It's a long way from perfect, >> but still worthwhile. > >> Would we back-patch that? Just do it in master? Wait for 9.2? > > It looks to me like a portability bug fix, so I'd say back-patch. > > I'll take care of it, unless you're hot to do so?
Nope, have at it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
