| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Manlio Perillo <manlio(dot)perillo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm |
| Date: | 2013-10-23 12:53:34 |
| Message-ID: | 25198.1382532814@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> Do you care about the snprintf behavior on very large buffers (larger
> than INT_MAX)? Then there's further complication, and it's an area
> where glibc behavior is likely to change in the future (because it is
> claimed that C99 and POSIX conflict, and glibc implements neither behavior).
We do not. Note that the buffer enlargement behavior is designed not to
let "len" exceed INT_MAX; it'll say "out of memory" instead.
Given that vsnprintf is defined to return int, buffers larger than INT_MAX
would be a real can of worms, one that we'd best not open.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-23 13:47:26 | Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2013-10-23 12:38:23 | Re: Commitfest II CLosed |