Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-10-28 14:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes:
>>> In think one of the reasons for the coding is the fact that *pw is
>>> described to be placed in the static area, which can be overwritten by
>>> succeeding calls to getpw*() functions.
>> Good point ... so maybe pstrdup instead of using a fixed-size buffer?
> Maybe. Or we just decide that check_usermap() is not allowed to call
> getpw*(). It's just a string-matching routine, so it doesn't have any
> such business anyway.
I'm okay with that as long as you add a comment describing this
assumption.
regards, tom lane
