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.
