From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incorrect usage of strtol, atoi for non-numeric junk inputs |
Date: | 2021-07-22 05:32:35 |
Message-ID: | YPkC828cQ8SMkMjI@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 01:19:41AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 00:44, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 12:32:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> > I see both of these are limited to 64 on windows. Won't those fail on Windows?
>>
>> Yes, thanks, they would. I would just cut the range numbers from the
>> expected output here. This does not matter in terms of coverage
>> either.
>
> Sounds good.
>
>> x> I also wondered if it would be worth doing #define MAX_JOBS somewhere
>> > away from the option parsing code. This part is pretty ugly:
>>
>> Agreed as well. pg_dump and pg_restore have their own idea of
>> parallelism in parallel.{c.h}. What about putting MAX_JOBS in
>> parallel.h then?
>
> parallel.h looks ok to me.
Okay, done those parts as per the attached. While on it, I noticed an
extra one for pg_dump --rows-per-insert. I am counting 25 translated
strings cut in total.
Any objections to this first step?
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v5-0001-Introduce-and-use-routine-for-parsing-of-int32-op.patch | text/x-diff | 25.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-07-22 05:52:02 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-07-22 05:28:12 | Re: Automatic notification of top transaction IDs |