Nico Williams <n...@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
