From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
In-reply-to: <8770.1533931511@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20180528150125.j2x3mp62ssbeg3h5@alvherre.pgsql>
 <2685.1527520461@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8770.1533931511@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:05:11 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16895.1533935042.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:04:02 -0400
Message-ID: <16896.1533935042@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> I think 0002 is probably pushable, really.  The unresolved issue about
> 0001 is whether it will create a spate of warnings on Windows builds,
> and if so what to do about it.  We might learn something from the
> cfbot about that, but I think the full buildfarm is going to be the
> only really authoritative answer.

Ah, cfbot has a run already, and it reports no warnings or errors in
its Windows build.

At this point I'm inclined to push both of those patches so we can
see what the buildfarm makes of them.

			regards, tom lane