Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:02:56 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
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: <20180914020256.GD29332@paquier.xyz>
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>
 <30022.1534705920@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180912070739.GK25160@paquier.xyz>
 <1304.1536774001@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4zI0WCX1RcnW9Hbu"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1304.1536774001@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk


--4zI0WCX1RcnW9Hbu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 01:40:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > I would have liked to look at this patch in details, but it failed to
> > apply.  Could you rebase?
>=20
> Ah, yeah, the dlopen patch touched a couple of the same places.
> Rebase attached --- no substantive changes.

-       if (handleDLL =3D=3D NULL)
-           ereport(FATAL,
-                   (errmsg_internal("could not load netmsg.dll: error
-            code %lu", GetLastError())));

In 0001, this is replaced by a non-FATAL error for the backend, which
does not seem like a good idea to me because the user loses visibility
with this DDL which canot be loaded.  I still have to see this error...

And about 0002.  I am surprised by the amount of cleanup that the
removal of all the special wrappers for %m gives, especially
expand_fmt_string.  So +1 for the concept.  I have been testing both
patches individually on Windows and compilation, as well as tests, do
not show any issues.  The tests have been done only with MSVC.

Could you drop the configure checks for snprintf and vsnprintf in a
separate patch?  The cleanup of %m and the removal of those switches
should be treated separatly in my opinion.
--
Michael

--4zI0WCX1RcnW9Hbu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=mPLE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4zI0WCX1RcnW9Hbu--