Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> > This patch uses our own snprintf() only when NLS support is
> > enabled,
> I see no point in this; it does not solve any problem we need solved,
> only complicate the configuration behavior even more.

I think this is analogous to checking for snprintf() support of 64-bit 
integers only if we previously found 64-bit integers to be supported.  
We don't need to include our own snprintf() if we don't need the extra 
features it provides.

Peter Eisentraut

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to