Re: adding strndup

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-12-04 11:40:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think this should be pretty uncontroversial, but wanted to give a
>> heads-up outside that thread. I attach the patch here for completeness.

> I'd just provide pnstrdup() in the frontend, without adding strndup().

+1 --- seems like a bunch more mechanism than is warranted. Let's
just open-code it in pnstrdup. We can rely on strnlen, since that's
already supported, and there's not much more there beyond that.

> I also see no point in adding both pnstrdup() and pg_strndup(). I'm fine
> with moving towards pg_strndup(), but then we just ought to remove
> pnstrdup().

There's a fair number of uses of pnstrdup in the backend. While it
wouldn't be too painful to rename them, I'm not sure I see the point.
(What I'd really argue for, if we did rename, is "pstrndup".)

regards, tom lane