From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
Date: | 2006-09-28 15:56:04 |
Message-ID: | 26197.1159458964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com> writes:
> Just wondering - are any of these cases where a memcpy() would work
> just as well? Or are you not sure that the source string is at least
> 64 bytes in length?
In most cases, we're pretty sure that it's *not* --- it'll just be a
palloc'd C string.
I'm disinclined to fool with the restriction that namestrcpy zero-pad
Name values, because they might end up on disk, and allowing random
memory contents to get written out is ungood from a security point of
view. However, it's entirely possible that it'd be a bit faster to do
a MemSet followed by strlcpy than to use strncpy for zero-padding.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2006-09-28 16:00:19 | Re: Row IS NULL question |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-28 15:45:32 | Re: Row IS NULL question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-28 17:24:30 | Re: Coding style for emacs |
Previous Message | Strong, David | 2006-09-28 14:51:36 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |