From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoYvHzFkwChsamwbBrLNJRcRq+fyTwveFaN_YOWUsRnfpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17245.1534289329@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaanyYh9KG49yWdhzU72Ngh7XG5Gs9rtceQfBg6WFaybA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9456.1534347706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180815155237.pz5fgfmdo4cgqjta@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoYvHzFkwChsamwbBrLNJRcRq+fyTwveFaN_YOWUsRnfpw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:01:28 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11137.1534349838.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:17:18 -0400
Message-ID: <11138.1534349838@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> We could just mandate C99, more generally.
>> 
>> /me goes and hides in a bush.

> It's hard to believe that would cost much.

I think we have done that, piece by piece, where it was actually buying us
something.  In particular we've gradually moved the goalposts for *printf
compliance, and I'm proposing here to move them a bit further.  I'm not
sure what "we're going to insist on C99" even means concretely, given
this position ...

> Personally, I'd prefer to
> continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of
> variables and code on grounds of style and readability.

... which I agree with.

> But it's kind
> of difficult to believe that we really need to worry about people
> still running 20-year old compilers very much.

Sure.  It's been a long time since anybody worried about those as
optimization targets, for instance.  Still, I'm not in favor of
actively breaking compatibility unless it buys us something.

			regards, tom lane