On Tuesday 06 of October 2015 17:59:23 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 05:45 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Isn't this arguably a Fedora regression? What did they change in F23 to
> >>> make
> >>> it fail? I note that F23 is still in Beta.
> >> Maybe, but it's pretty unfriendly for us to complain about a library
> >> issue, if it is one, by failing an Assert(). People with
> >> non-assert-enabled builds will just get wrong answers. Yuck.
> >> Thinking about how this could happen, I believe that one possibility
> >> is that there are two strings A and B and a locale L such that
> >> strcoll_l(A, B, L) and memcmp(strxfrm(A, L), strxfrm(B, L)) disagree
> >> (that is, the results are of different sign, or one is zero and the
> >> other is not).
> > I wonder if Glibc bug 18589 is relevant. Bug 18934 says "Note that
> > these unittests pass with glibc-2.21 but fail with 2.22 and current
> > git due to bug 18589 which points to a broken change in the collate
> > algorithm that needs to be reverted first." Hungarian is mentioned.
> > Doesn't Fedora 23 include glibc-2.22? Is it possible that that bug
> > affects strcoll but not strxfrm?
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18934
> Yes, it's 2.22:
> [vagrant@localhost ~ ]$ rpm -q -a | grep glibc
Yup, broken glibc:
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: