Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi�:
>> This patch isn't acceptable because va_copy() isn't portable.
>>
>> I'm kinda wondering why PLy_printf and the functions after it even
>> exist. They look like rather poorly done reimplementations of
>> functionality that exists elsewhere in the backend (eg, stringinfo.c).
>> In particular, why malloc and not palloc?
> See attached patch.
> I didn't bother to change the PLy_malloc and friends because I think
> that would be too much change for 8.3. PLy_realloc is gone though
> because there are no callers left after this patch.
Yeah, that is about what I was thinking too. Are you set up to
back-patch this as far as 7.3? If so, please apply.
regards, tom lane
