Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > With 8.1_RC1 I *do* get the results Nicolai reported. With the changes I
> > made yesterday, I see the result above, i.e. what we expect from our own
> > breakage of sprintf (i haven't yet updated the snapshot I took).
>
> Ah. OK, that makes sense.
>
> > But the simple fix seems to be to use our version of printf and friends.
> > The changes requires are not too invasive.
>
> I agree with doing this even if we weren't faced with (apparently)
> multiple versions of libintl that don't all work alike. My thought is
> that running our own version of snprintf on a heavily used port like
> Windows is exactly what is needed to flush out any remaining bugs.
> It's obviously not gotten enough field usage yet ...
>
> Was the last patch you sent in ready for application, or are you still
> fooling with it?
He is still working on it. It did not handle all *printf functions, as
he mentioned, and he might have other changes.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073