Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uP5dW-00019I-2i for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:31:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uP5dT-009CHB-NP for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:31:56 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uP5dT-009CH2-Fo for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:31:56 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uP5dR-001IWA-31; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:31:55 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 55AKVoF8798478; Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:31:50 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Jeff Davis cc: Jeff Davis , pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: inet_net_pton.c: use pg_ascii_tolower() rather than tolower(). In-reply-to: <60e8c6d0a6c08e67f15dbbe9e53df0119c710065.camel@j-davis.com> References: <60e8c6d0a6c08e67f15dbbe9e53df0119c710065.camel@j-davis.com> Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Davis message dated "Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:49:35 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <798476.1749587510.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:31:50 -0400 Message-ID: <798477.1749587510@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Jeff Davis 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