| From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, 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 19:47:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAEudQAp6FXGmbV4Nq7E7=avBJp2J57uUjc9y-RCcousPd4AiMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em seg., 1 de jul. de 2024 às 16:15, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
escreveu:
> 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?
>
Yes of course, I understand.
This can be a problem for users.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2024-07-01 19:56:23 | Re: Optimize numeric multiplication for one and two base-NBASE digit multiplicands. |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-01 19:46:56 | Re: optimizing pg_upgrade's once-in-each-database steps |