From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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: | 2024-07-02 11:07:42 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQAp32-tB9ffEWcxtTzNDtQ7UmqFzEETnooNNZPcubi6e=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em ter., 2 de jul. de 2024 às 06:44, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
escreveu:
> > On 2 Jul 2024, at 02:33, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:19:59PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Yep. Agreed to keep backward-compatibility here, even if I suspect
> > there is close to nobody relying on backup label names of this size.
>
> I suspect so too, and it might be a good project for someone to go over
> such
> buffers to see if there is reason grow or contract. Either way, pushed the
> strlcpy part.
>
Thanks Daniel.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-07-02 11:42:50 | Re: Relation bulk write facility |
Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2024-07-02 10:46:21 | Re: CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW |