Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nico Williams
Subject Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
Date
Msg-id 20180819182704.GC16780@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 01:15:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 04:34:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So now I'm about ready to propose that we just *always* use
> >> snprintf.c, and forget all of the related configure probing.
> 
> > You'd also get to ensure that all uses from *die() are
> > async-signal-safe.
> 
> [ raised eyebrow... ] That seems like more than I care to promise
> here.  But even if snprintf itself were unconditionally safe,
> there's plenty of other stuff in that code path that isn't.

One step at a time, no?  And there's the other benefits.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works