Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works

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