From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
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
In-reply-to: <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>
 <20180819045050.GB16780@localhost>
Comments: In-reply-to Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
	message dated "Sat, 18 Aug 2018 23:50:50 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25778.1534655758.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 01:15:58 -0400
Message-ID: <25779.1534655758@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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.

			regards, tom lane