Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:27:05 -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: <20180819182704.GC16780@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>
 <20180819045050.GB16780@localhost>
 <25779.1534655758@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <25779.1534655758@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 01:15:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> > You'd also get to ensure that all uses from *die() are
> > async-signal-safe.
> 
> [ raised eyebrow... ] That seems like more than I care to promise
> here.  But even if snprintf itself were unconditionally safe,
> there's plenty of other stuff in that code path that isn't.

One step at a time, no?  And there's the other benefits.