From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Manlio Perillo <manlio(dot)perillo(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm |
Date: | 2013-10-23 13:47:26 |
Message-ID: | 26677.1382536046@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah. As a separate matter, it might be useful to revise stringinfo.c
>> and the asprintf code so that *if* the returned value is larger than the
>> given buffer size, we use it as a guide to resizing, avoiding the possible
>> need to loop multiple times to make the buffer large enough. And we could
>> also improve our own implementation of snprintf to follow the C99 spec.
> Attached is a draft patch which implements this.
I started working on a very similar patch last night, but then began to
wonder if it wouldn't be better to try to share code between stringinfo.c
and psprintf.c --- that is, expose the latter's pvsnprintf and use that
in stringinfo.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sameer Kumar | 2013-10-23 14:43:34 | Using indexes for ORDER BY and PARTITION BY clause in windowing functions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-23 12:53:34 | Re: Why the asprintf patch is still breaking the buildfarm |