Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Today's puzzler for the curious:
> It turns out that this failure was caused by pulling in pg's own printf
> implementation to the resulting ECPG program.
Hah! Nice detective work, Kris.
> Calling printf("%.*f\n", -1, 14.7) results in "14" from pg_printf and
> "14.700000" from NetBSD's.
So does this represent a bug or shortcoming in pg_printf? A quick look
at the spec says that "A negative precision is taken as if the precision
were omitted", and rounding to int doesn't sound like the appropriate
behavior for bare %f.
regards, tom lane