Hi, On 2022-10-15 21:00:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > snprintf is required by POSIX going back to SUSv2, so it's pretty darn > > hard to imagine any currently-used platform that hasn't got it. Even > > my now-extinct dinosaur gaur had it (per digging in backup files). > > I think we could certainly assume its presence in the branches that > > require C99. > > After further thought, I think the best compromise is just that: > > (1) apply s/sprintf/snprintf/ patch in branches back to v12, where > we began to require C99. > > (2) in v11 and back to 9.2, enable -Wno-deprecated if available. > > One thing motivating this choice is that we're just a couple > weeks away from the final release of v10. So I'm hesitant to do > anything that might turn out to be moving the portability goalposts > in v10. But we're already assuming we can detect -Wno-foo options > correctly in v10 and older (e.g. 4c5a29c0e), so point (2) seems > pretty low-risk.
Makes sense to me. - Andres
