| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Zero-padding and zero-masking fixes for to_char(float) |
| Date: | 2015-03-23 04:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | 12759.1427085385@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:46:08PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> I recommend adding a "configure" test to use our snprintf.c replacements if
>> sprintf("%.*f", 65536, 99999999999.0) gives unexpected output.
> Do we really want to go to our /port snprintf just to handle 512+
> digits?
I'd rather not go that direction (that is, to using a configure test).
It assumes that all copies of libc on a particular platform behave the
same, which seems like a bad bet to me. I think we'd be better off to
avoid asking libc to do anything that might not work everywhere.
On the other hand, this line of thought might end up having you
reimplement in formatting.c the same logic I put into snprintf.c
recently, which seems a bit silly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Venkata Balaji N | 2015-03-23 04:42:39 | recovery_target_time ignored ? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-23 03:46:45 | Re: New functions |