Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> pg_upgrade's pg_scandir_internal() makes use of the non-standard %m
> format:
>
> pg_log(PG_FATAL, "could not open directory \"%s\": %m\n", dirname);
>
> Is this an oversight, or is there an undocumented assumption that this
> code will only be used on platforms wher
On tor, 2011-07-07 at 00:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is there a way to persuade gcc to complain about such extensions when
> used in contexts where we don't know they work?
I don't think so.
First of all, the comment in pg_config_manual.h says that we *want* the
compiler to recognize %m as valid,
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> pg_upgrade's pg_scandir_internal() makes use of the non-standard %m
> format:
>
> pg_log(PG_FATAL, "could not open directory \"%s\": %m\n", dirname);
>
> Is this an oversight, or is there an undocumented assumption that this
> code will only be used on platforms wher
pg_upgrade's pg_scandir_internal() makes use of the non-standard %m
format:
pg_log(PG_FATAL, "could not open directory \"%s\": %m\n", dirname);
Is this an oversight, or is there an undocumented assumption that this
code will only be used on platforms where %m works?
(Which platforms don't ha
