| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
| Date: | 2018-08-15 22:18:21 |
| Message-ID: | 10084.1534371501@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-15 14:05:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Still want to argue for no backpatch?
> I'm a bit confused. Why did you just backpatch this ~two hours after
> people objected to the idea? Even if it were during my current work
> hours, I don't even read mail that often if I'm hacking on something
> complicated.
If a consensus emerges to deal with this some other way, reverting
isn't hard. But I think it's pretty clear at this point that we're
dealing with real bugs versus entirely hypothetical bugs, and that's
not a decision that's hard to make IMO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-08-15 22:23:40 | Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 22:13:59 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-15 22:24:01 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-15 22:13:59 | Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c |