From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:19:59 |
Message-ID: | 294153CA-1CCE-41C9-9879-D8BFFC1CEFE2@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 1 Jul 2024, at 21:15, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> 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?
That's precisely what I was getting at. Maybe it makes sense to change, maybe
not, but that's not for this patch to decide as that's a different discussion
from using safe string copying API's.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-07-01 19:24:15 | Re: Built-in CTYPE provider |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-07-01 19:15:48 | Re: Avoid incomplete copy string (src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c) |