From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:18:21 -0400
Message-ID: <10084.1534371501@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180815215217.b3gnglunnxpxsl2d@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20180815155643.zx4qpcmpvhemefyg@alvherre.pgsql>
<13169.1534352739@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<17490.1534356329@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180815215217.b3gnglunnxpxsl2d@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-08-15 14:05:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Still want to argue for no backpatch?
> I'm a bit confused. Why did you just backpatch this ~two hours after
> people objected to the idea? Even if it were during my current work
> hours, I don't even read mail that often if I'm hacking on something
> complicated.
If a consensus emerges to deal with this some other way, reverting
isn't hard. But I think it's pretty clear at this point that we're
dealing with real bugs versus entirely hypothetical bugs, and that's
not a decision that's hard to make IMO.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
In-Reply-To: <10084.1534371501@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox