Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Date: 2006-01-09 23:43:37
Message-ID: 22967.1136850217@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Is there a TODO here, even if the Perl folks are supposed to fix it?

When and if they fix it, it'd be useful for us to document the gotcha
someplace (not sure where, though). Maybe we should even go so far as
to refuse to work with older libperls on Windows.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-01-09 23:48:34 Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-01-09 23:39:33 Re: plperl vs LC_COLLATE (was Re: Possible savepoint bug)