Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > With 8.1_RC1 I *do* get the results Nicolai reported. With the changes I > > made yesterday, I see the result above, i.e. what we expect from our own > > breakage of sprintf (i haven't yet updated the snapshot I took). > > Ah. OK, that makes sense. > > > But the simple fix seems to be to use our version of printf and friends. > > The changes requires are not too invasive. > > I agree with doing this even if we weren't faced with (apparently) > multiple versions of libintl that don't all work alike. My thought is > that running our own version of snprintf on a heavily used port like > Windows is exactly what is needed to flush out any remaining bugs. > It's obviously not gotten enough field usage yet ... > > Was the last patch you sent in ready for application, or are you still > fooling with it?
He is still working on it. It did not handle all *printf functions, as he mentioned, and he might have other changes. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
