Re: Allow escape in application_name

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com
Cc: kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Subject: Re: Allow escape in application_name
Date: 2021-10-12 06:06:11
Message-ID: 20211012.150611.237229758911985695.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:25:01 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
>
>
> On 2021/10/07 11:46, kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > So now we can choose from followings:
> >* ignore such differences and use isdigit() and strtol()
> > * give up using them and implement two static support functions
> >How do you think? Someone knows any other knowledge about locale?
>
> Replacing process_log_prefix_padding() with isdigit()+strtol() is
> just refactoring and doesn't provide any new feature. So they
> basically should work in the same way. If the behavior of
> isdigit()+strtol()
> can be different from process_log_prefix_padding(), I'd prefer to
> the latter option you suggested, i.e., give up using
> isdigit()+strtol().
>
> OTOH, of course if the behaviors of them are the same,
> I'm ok to use isdigit()+strtol(), though.

Hmm. It look like behaving a bit xdifferently. At least for example,
for "%-X", current code treats it as 0 padding but the patch treats it
as -1.

By the way, the current code is already a kind of buggy. I think I
showed an example like:

"%4%5%6%7p" is converted to "57p". Do we need to imitate that bug
with this patch?

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-10-12 06:40:39 Re: Reword docs of feature "Remove temporary files after backend crash"
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2021-10-12 06:00:43 Re: Error "initial slot snapshot too large" in create replication slot