On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 01:15:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> writes: > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 04:34:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So now I'm about ready to propose that we just *always* use > >> snprintf.c, and forget all of the related configure probing. > > > You'd also get to ensure that all uses from *die() are > > async-signal-safe. > > [ raised eyebrow... ] That seems like more than I care to promise > here. But even if snprintf itself were unconditionally safe, > there's plenty of other stuff in that code path that isn't.
One step at a time, no? And there's the other benefits.
