Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> We could just mandate C99, more generally.
>>
>> /me goes and hides in a bush.

> It's hard to believe that would cost much.

I think we have done that, piece by piece, where it was actually buying us
something. In particular we've gradually moved the goalposts for *printf
compliance, and I'm proposing here to move them a bit further. I'm not
sure what "we're going to insist on C99" even means concretely, given
this position ...

> Personally, I'd prefer to
> continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of
> variables and code on grounds of style and readability.

... which I agree with.

> But it's kind
> of difficult to believe that we really need to worry about people
> still running 20-year old compilers very much.

Sure. It's been a long time since anybody worried about those as
optimization targets, for instance. Still, I'm not in favor of
actively breaking compatibility unless it buys us something.

regards, tom lane