Re: Using defines for protocol characters

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 03:10, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> On 2023-Aug-07, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > I guess, your patch would not be much different; you can still have
> > all the nice names and assign the appropriate values to the enum
> > values same as now, but using an enum you might also gain
> > type-checking in the code and also get warnings for the "switch"
> > statements if there are any cases accidentally omitted.
>
> Hmm, I think omitting a 'default' clause (which is needed when you want
> warnings for missing clauses) in a switch that handles protocol traffic
> is not great, because the switch would misbehave when the network
> counterpart sends a broken message. I'm not sure we want to do that.
> It could become a serious security problem if confronted with a
> malicious libpq.
>
>
Any other changes required ?

Dave

> --
> Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer —
> https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
>