Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 9/21/17 14:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've just been going through their git commit log to see what else has
>> changed since tzcode2017b, and I note that there are half a dozen other
>> portability-ish fixes. I think that some of them affect only code we
>> don't use, b
On 9/21/17 14:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've just been going through their git commit log to see what else has
> changed since tzcode2017b, and I note that there are half a dozen other
> portability-ish fixes. I think that some of them affect only code we
> don't use, but I'm not sure that that's the
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 9/21/17 11:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This also means that the portability problem is purely hypothetical;
>> given valid tz reference data the code wouldn't ever try to increment
>> "hit" to 2 anyway. It's even more hypothetical for us, because we don't
>> use leap-seco
On 9/21/17 11:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> So the code in their git repo still has the variable as bool, but
> there's no ++ operator on it anymore.
>
> This also means that the portability problem is purely hypothetical;
> given valid tz reference data the code wouldn't ever try to increment
> "hit" to
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Fix bool/int type confusion
> Using ++ on a bool variable doesn't work well when stdbool.h is in use.
> The original BSD code appears to use int here, so use that instead.
I'm fairly unhappy with this approach to fixing this problem, because
localtime.c is not Postgres-
