Hi,
On 2018-08-15 11:41:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, independently of whether to back-patch, it strikes me that what
> we ought to do in HEAD (after applying this) is to just assume we have
> C99-compliant behavior, and rip out the baroque logic in psnprintf
> and appendPQExpBufferVA that tries to deal with pre-C99 snprintf.
> I don't expect that'd save any really meaningful number of cycles,
> but at least it'd buy back the two added instructions mentioned above.
> I suppose we could put in a configure check that verifies whether
> the system snprintf returns the right value for overrun cases, though
> it's hard to believe there are any platforms that pass the 'z' check
> and would fail this one.
We could just mandate C99, more generally.
/me goes and hides in a bush.