Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I was wondering more about the nature of the runtime check than the fact
> that it's a runtime check at all... E.g. snprintf.c simply skips over
> unknown format characters and might not have been detected as faulty on
> 32bit platforms by that check. Which might be considered a good thing :)
Oh ... gotcha. Yeah, it's possible that snprintf would behave in a way
that masks the fact that it doesn't really recognize the "z" flag, but
that seems rather unlikely to me. More likely it would abandon processing
the %-sequence on grounds it's malformed.
I will try the patch on my old HPUX dinosaur, which I'm pretty sure
does not know "z", and verify this is the case.
Also, I'm guessing Windows' version of snprintf doesn't have "z" either.
Could someone try the patch's configure test program on Windows and see
what the result is?
regards, tom lane