Re: Reasons not to like asprintf

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> ... BTW, another reason to choose identical APIs for frontend and backend
> versions of these functions is that it greatly eases use of them in shared
> frontend/backend code. As I notice somebody has *already done* in
> common/relpath.c. I'm not exactly sure how those psprintf calls are
> working at all in frontend builds. Maybe they aren't quite, and that has
> something to do with the failures on anole?

Seems plausible.

> In order to avoid having to clutter stuff like that with #ifdef FRONTENDs,
> I'm now thinking we should use exactly the same names for the frontend and
> backend versions, ie psprintf() and pvsprintf(). The main reason for
> considering a pg_ prefix for the frontend versions was to avoid cluttering
> application namespace; but it's already the case that we don't expect
> libpgcommon to be namespace clean.

To be honest, I had been assuming we'd use the same names. As for which
direction to go, I'd personally prefer psprintf but that's just my lazy
developer fingers talking.

Thanks,

Stephen