Re: port/snprintf.c (was Re: Numeric 508 datatype) - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: port/snprintf.c (was Re: Numeric 508 datatype)
Date
Msg-id 12549.1133753220@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to port/snprintf.c (was Re: Numeric 508 datatype)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: port/snprintf.c (was Re: Numeric 508 datatype)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problems are sufficiently bad that it might be a good idea to
>> backport the fixes into 8.0 and before as well --- but I note that
>> the ABI is different (pg_snprintf vs snprintf, etc) so this requires
>> a bit of investigation rather than just committing the file as-is.

> Not as many 8.0.X platforms used *printf because we didn't test %$ for
> its use on that release, so my bet is that very few platforms would be
> using it.

Hm.  One of the main problems I found was incorrect results for
LONGLONG_MIN (-2^63).  I'm rather tempted to add a test case for
that to the int8 regression test and see if any platforms fail ;-)

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO item -- Improve psql's handling of multi-line queries
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: port/snprintf.c (was Re: Numeric 508 datatype)