From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:52:17 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <10083.1534371501.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:18:21 -0400
Message-ID: <10084.1534371501@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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