Re: check_strxfrm_bug()

On 4/18/23 9:19 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:52 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:40:14PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> +1 for getting rid of TRUST_STRXFRM.
> 
> +1
> 
> The situation is not improving fast, and requires hard work to follow
> on each OS.  Clearly, mainstreaming ICU is the way to go.  libc
> support will always have niche uses, to be compatible with other
> software on the box, but trusting strxfrm doesn't seem to be on the
> cards any time soon.

[RMT hat, personal opinion on RMT]

To be clear, is the proposal to remove both "check_strxfrm_bug" and 
"TRUST_STRXFRM"?

Given a bunch of folks who have expertise in this area of code all agree 
with removing the above as part of the collation cleanups targeted for 
v16, I'm inclined to agree. I don't really see the need for an explicit 
RMT action, but based on the consensus this seems OK to add as an open item.

Thanks,

Jonathan