Re: Add %z support to elog/ereport?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add %z support to elog/ereport? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13752.1390494356@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add %z support to elog/ereport? (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add %z support to elog/ereport?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I was wondering more about the nature of the runtime check than the fact > that it's a runtime check at all... E.g. snprintf.c simply skips over > unknown format characters and might not have been detected as faulty on > 32bit platforms by that check. Which might be considered a good thing :) Oh ... gotcha. Yeah, it's possible that snprintf would behave in a way that masks the fact that it doesn't really recognize the "z" flag, but that seems rather unlikely to me. More likely it would abandon processing the %-sequence on grounds it's malformed. I will try the patch on my old HPUX dinosaur, which I'm pretty sure does not know "z", and verify this is the case. Also, I'm guessing Windows' version of snprintf doesn't have "z" either. Could someone try the patch's configure test program on Windows and see what the result is? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: