Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 23:50:50 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
Message-ID: <20180819045050.GB16780@localhost>
References: <20180528150125.j2x3mp62ssbeg3h5@alvherre.pgsql>
 <2685.1527520461@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <8770.1533931511@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <16896.1533935042@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <14925.1534040609@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1437.1534100930@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <13183.1534624490@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13183.1534624490@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 04:34:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So now I'm about ready to propose that we just *always* use
> snprintf.c, and forget all of the related configure probing.

Yes.

> This'd have some advantages, notably that we'd get the
> useful_strerror() behavior in frontend as well as backend,
> assuming we converted all our frontend code to use %m.

You'd also get to ensure that all uses from *die() are
async-signal-safe.

You'd also ensure that snprintf.c gets maximal testing.

> And we'd not exactly be the first project to decide that.
> But it's kind of a big move from where we are today.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think that is the best approach.