From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using the return value of strlcpy() and strlcat() |
Date: | 2019-03-14 01:57:13 |
Message-ID: | 32001.1552528633@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't think that's a safe transformation: what strlcpy returns is
>> strlen(src), which might be different from what it was actually
>> able to fit into the destination.
>> Sure, they're equivalent if no truncation occurred; but if we were
>> 100.00% sure of no truncation, we'd likely not bother with strlcpy.
> So, if return value < length (3rd argument) we should be able to use the
> return value and avoid the strlen, else do the strlen ?
Mmm ... if there's a way to do it that's not messy and typo-prone,
maybe. But I'm dubious that the potential gain is worth complicating
the code. The strings involved aren't usually all that long.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-03-14 02:19:16 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |
Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-03-14 01:44:57 | RE: Timeout parameters |