Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, build is broken again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Sigh, build is broken again
Date: 1998-12-11 17:02:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Is this item resolved?

>> Someone checked in code that assumes vsnprintf() exists.
>> Should be cool, we have an emulation right?  Well, no.
>> configure sets up to build port/snprintf.c if snprintf()
>> doesn't exist.  HPUX, for one, has that but not vsnprintf.
>> I guess the right fix is for configure to check for *both*
>> snprintf and vsnprintf --- anyone see a problem with that?

No, we backed out the original patch and thus made the problem go away
for 6.4.  That's where it still stands, AFAIK.

I'd suggest re-committing the original patch (something to do with
tracing, IIRC) but to the 6.5 branch *only*.  The argument about not
having done enough testing applies even more strongly to 6.4.1 than
it did for 6.4.  But if we put it into 6.5 now, we should have some
track record with vsnprintf before 6.5 hits the streets.

As soon as you commit the trace patch, my build will break, and then
I'll do something about fixing configure to check for vsnprintf ;-)

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-12-11 17:11:40
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] For the TODO list
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-12-11 16:51:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] lock table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group