Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > Perhaps it is time to require HAVE_WCSTOMBS and HAVE_TOWLOWER, removing > USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER? Every buildfarm fossil has both.
+1 ... if nothing else, there's the problem that untested code is likely to be broken. You just proved it *is* broken, of course, but my point is that even if we repaired the immediate damage we could have little confidence in it staying fixed. I think the USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER split was originally my code, so I'm willing to take care of removing it if there's consensus that that's what to do. I'm not sure that we need to treat this as a v10 open item, though. The premise of removing !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER is that nobody cares anymore, therefore it shouldn't matter to users whether we remove it in v10. There's an argument that having only two states of the relevant code, not three, in the live back branches is worth something for maintenance --- but should that outweigh the risk of breaking something post-rc1? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers