| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing |
| Date: | 2017-04-13 23:44:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQOGLhGFW+1D=_WHLhaJLv+WafhHN-2n-vvo_K=Ds9-OA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> wrote:
> Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer
> parameters were not properly checked against invalid input.
> It is not a critical issue, but this could be misleading for an user who
> writes -z max or -s 0.5…
> I've attached the patch to this mail. Should I add it to the next commit fest
> or is it not needed for such small patches ?
A call to atoi is actually equivalent to strtol with the rounding:
(int)strtol(str, (char **)NULL, 10);
So I don't think this is worth caring.
By doing a git grep "atoi(optarg)" you'll see far more places that
handle integer options this way as well...
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-14 00:03:06 | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-04-13 22:58:50 | Re: Undefined psql variables |