Обсуждение: pgsql: inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

pgsql: inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

От
Jeff Davis
Дата:
inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

Avoid dependence on setlocale(). No behavior change.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9875f7f9-50f1-4b5d-86fc-ee8b03e8c162@eisentraut.org
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/8898082a5d3e94eef073f0e08124137e096e78ef

Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)


Re: pgsql: inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

От
Jeff Davis
Дата:
On Tue, 2025-06-10 at 18:24 +0000, Jeff Davis wrote:
> inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

These 4 small patches were somewhat of a "false start" on 19 -- sorry
about that. Not sure if it's worth it to revert them and reapply in a
couple weeks, as they look pretty harmless.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2025-06-10 at 18:24 +0000, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

> These 4 small patches were somewhat of a "false start" on 19 -- sorry
> about that. Not sure if it's worth it to revert them and reapply in a
> couple weeks, as they look pretty harmless.

Ask the RMT, I guess.  I don't have any objection, but they
have final say at this stage.

            regards, tom lane



Re: pgsql: inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().

От
Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:

On 10 June 2025 13:31:50 GMT-07:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
>> On Tue, 2025-06-10 at 18:24 +0000, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower().
>
>> These 4 small patches were somewhat of a "false start" on 19 -- sorry
>> about that. Not sure if it's worth it to revert them and reapply in a
>> couple weeks, as they look pretty harmless.
>
>Ask the RMT, I guess.  I don't have any objection, but they
>have final say at this stage.

Seems fine by me to include it in v18.

- Heikki