> Hmm ...
>
> First line of thought: we surely must not insert a snprintf
> into libpq.so unless it is 100% up to spec *and* has no
> performance issues ... neither of which can be claimed of the
> CVS-tip version.
>
> Second line of thought: libpq already feels free to insert
> allegedly up-to-spec versions of a number of things, and no
> one has complained.
> Maybe the linker prevents problems by not linking these
> versions to any calls from outside libpq?
>
> Third thought: Windows' linker seems to be broken enough that
> it may create problems of this ilk that exist on no other platform.
If you're takling the combination of libpq and Windows, we are definitly
safe for dynamic linking, which is what most ppl will use. Because the
DLL will only export the entrypoitns that we explicitly define in the
DEF files, and those are also the only ones that are present in the
"import library".
//Magnus
