Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> This patch isn't acceptable because va_copy() isn't portable.
>> I'm kinda wondering why PLy_printf and the functions after it even
>> exist.  They look like rather poorly done reimplementations of
>> functionality that exists elsewhere in the backend (eg, stringinfo.c).
>> In particular, why malloc and not palloc?

> See attached patch.

> I didn't bother to change the PLy_malloc and friends because I think
> that would be too much change for 8.3.  PLy_realloc is gone though
> because there are no callers left after this patch.

Yeah, that is about what I was thinking too.  Are you set up to
back-patch this as far as 7.3?  If so, please apply.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to