On 2014-01-21 12:11:23 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > How difficult would it be to have expand_fmt_string deal with positional > modifiers? I don't think we need anything from it other than the %n$ > notation, so perhaps it's not so problematic.
I don't think there's much reason to go there. I didn't go for the pg-supplied sprintf() because I thought it'd be considered to invasive. Since that's apparently not the case... > > Perhaps we should jettison entirely the idea of using the operating > > system's built-in sprintf and use one of our own that has all of the > > nice widgets we need, like a format code that's guaranteed to be right > > for uint64 and one that's guaranteed to be right for Size. This could > > turn out to be a bad idea if the best sprintf we can write is much > > slower than the native sprintf on any common platforms ... and maybe > > it wouldn't play nice with GCC's desire to check format strings. But > > what we're doing now is a real nuisance, too. > > Maybe we can use our own implementation if the system's doesn't support > %z. It's present in glibc 2.1 at least, and it's part of in the 2004 > edition of POSIX:2001. > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/sprintf.html Yea, I have a patch for that, will send it as soon as some other stuff is finished. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
