From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: 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 13:05:39 -0400
Message-ID: <13169.1534352739@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180815155643.zx4qpcmpvhemefyg@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180815155643.zx4qpcmpvhemefyg@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Aug-15, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Back-patching seems a bit aggressive to me considering that the danger
>> is hypothetical.
> That was my first thought too, and my preferred path would be to make
> this master-only and only consider a backpatch later if we find some
> practical reason to do so.
Meh --- the hazards of back-patching seem to me to be more hypothetical
than the benefits. Still, I seem to be in the minority, so I withdraw
the proposal to back-patch.
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, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
In-Reply-To: <13169.1534352739@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