Hi,
On 2022-10-15 21:00:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > snprintf is required by POSIX going back to SUSv2, so it's pretty darn
> > hard to imagine any currently-used platform that hasn't got it. Even
> > my now-extinct dinosaur gaur had it (per digging in backup files).
> > I think we could certainly assume its presence in the branches that
> > require C99.
>
> After further thought, I think the best compromise is just that:
>
> (1) apply s/sprintf/snprintf/ patch in branches back to v12, where
> we began to require C99.
>
> (2) in v11 and back to 9.2, enable -Wno-deprecated if available.
>
> One thing motivating this choice is that we're just a couple
> weeks away from the final release of v10. So I'm hesitant to do
> anything that might turn out to be moving the portability goalposts
> in v10. But we're already assuming we can detect -Wno-foo options
> correctly in v10 and older (e.g. 4c5a29c0e), so point (2) seems
> pretty low-risk.
Makes sense to me.
- Andres
