Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?
Date: 2023-10-24 20:34:54
Message-ID: 849588.1698179694@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> I went ahead and applied this on master, thanks for review! Now to see if
> there will be any noticeable difference in resource usage.

I think that tools like Coverity are likely to whine about your
use of sprintf instead of snprintf. Sure, it's perfectly safe,
but that won't stop the no-sprintf-ever crowd from complaining.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Malakhov 2023-10-24 20:37:32 RFC: Pluggable TOAST
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-10-24 20:25:54 Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?