Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Aug-15, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Back-patching seems a bit aggressive to me considering that the danger
>> is hypothetical.

> That was my first thought too, and my preferred path would be to make
> this master-only and only consider a backpatch later if we find some
> practical reason to do so.

Meh --- the hazards of back-patching seem to me to be more hypothetical
than the benefits.  Still, I seem to be in the minority, so I withdraw
the proposal to back-patch.

            regards, tom lane