Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Ashwin Agrawal <aagra...@pivotal.io> writes: >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I don't think that's a safe transformation: what strlcpy returns is >>> strlen(src), which might be different from what it was actually >>> able to fit into the destination.
Yeah, Andrew Gierth pointed this out on IRC as well. >>> Sure, they're equivalent if no truncation occurred; but if we were >>> 100.00% sure of no truncation, we'd likely not bother with strlcpy. > >> So, if return value < length (3rd argument) we should be able to use the >> return value and avoid the strlen, else do the strlen ? > > Mmm ... if there's a way to do it that's not messy and typo-prone, > maybe. But I'm dubious that the potential gain is worth complicating > the code. The strings involved aren't usually all that long. Please consider this patch withdrawn. - ilmari -- "I use RMS as a guide in the same way that a boat captain would use a lighthouse. It's good to know where it is, but you generally don't want to find yourself in the same spot." - Tollef Fog Heen
