From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Remove one use of IDENT_USERNAME_MAX |
Date: | 2019-10-30 10:19:30 |
Message-ID: | 062cc5e1-554e-7f5d-b7ea-1d9888679680@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-10-29 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2019-10-28 14:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> In think one of the reasons for the coding is the fact that *pw is
>>>> described to be placed in the static area, which can be overwritten by
>>>> succeeding calls to getpw*() functions.
>
>>> Good point ... so maybe pstrdup instead of using a fixed-size buffer?
>
>> Maybe. Or we just decide that check_usermap() is not allowed to call
>> getpw*(). It's just a string-matching routine, so it doesn't have any
>> such business anyway.
>
> I'm okay with that as long as you add a comment describing this
> assumption.
Committed with a pstrdup(). That seemed more consistent with other code
in that file.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-10-30 12:02:07 | Re: Unix-domain socket support on Windows |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2019-10-30 10:08:58 | Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control |