Re: Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL
Date: 2002-08-12 04:05:36
Message-ID: 27201.1029125136@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Whilst looking around for some more PostgreSQL related stuff, this
> message turned up:
> http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/sardonix/2002-February/000051.html

I see one unsubstantiated allegation about PG intermixed with a ton
of content-free navel-gazing. Don't waste my time.

There was some considerable effort awhile back towards eliminating
unsafe printfs in favor of snprintfs and similar constructs; I doubt
that the comments in that message postdate that effort.

I have no doubt that some problems remain (cf recent agonizing over
whether there is a buffer overrun problem in the date parser) ...
but unspecific rumors don't help anyone. As always, the best form of
criticism is a diff -c patch.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-12 04:10:05 Re: Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Justin Clift 2002-08-12 03:36:55 Interesting message about printf()'s in PostgreSQL