Tom Lane said:
> Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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):
>
> Yah know, I looked at that on Monday and said to myself "Se
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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):
Yah know, I looked at that on Monday and said to myself "Self, that
looks like a r
A bit more thinking led me to try:
float safe_version;
...
eval_pv((safe_version < (float)2.09 ? safe_bad : safe_ok), FALSE);
which seems to fix the issue. (after all float *should* be accurate
enough in this case)
cheers
Mark
P.s : trivial patch attached
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Could b
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
andr
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 disab
