| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid incomplete copy string (src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c) |
| Date: | 2024-07-01 19:15:48 |
| Message-ID: | 202407011915.qbnelvrsbfhc@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Jul-01, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > - char name[MAXPGPATH + 1];
> > + char name[MAXPGPATH];/* backup label name */
> >
> > With the introduced use of strlcpy, why do we need to change this field?
> >
> The part about being the only reference in the entire code that uses
> MAXPGPATH + 1.
The bit I don't understand about this discussion is what will happen
with users that currently have exactly 1024 chars in backup names today.
With this change, we'll be truncating their names to 1023 chars instead.
Why would they feel that such change is welcome?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-07-01 19:19:59 | Re: Avoid incomplete copy string (src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-07-01 19:12:25 | Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock |