On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 03:58:31PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 03:07:07PM -0300, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello wrote: >>> Given the infrequency of complaints, I'm inclined to apply >>> the more thorough fix only in HEAD, and to just raise MAX_TOKEN >>> in the back branches. Thoughts? >>> >> >> It makes sense to change it only in HEAD. > > I wouldn't be opposed to back-patching the more thorough fix, but I don't > feel too strongly about it.
- * The token, if any, is returned at *buf (a buffer of size bufsz), and + * The token, if any, is returned into *buf, and * *lineptr is advanced past the token. The comment indentation is a bit off here. * In event of an error, log a message at ereport level elevel, and also - * set *err_msg to a string describing the error. Currently the only - * possible error is token too long for buf. + * set *err_msg to a string describing the error. Currently no error + * conditions are defined. I find the choice to keep err_msg in next_token() a bit confusing in next_field_expand(). If no errors are possible, why not just get rid of it? FWIW, I don't feel strongly about backpatching that either, so for the back branches I'd choose to bump up the token size limit and call it a day. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature