On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:38:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > I share your (Kevin's) discomfort with our use of strlcpy(). I wouldn't > > mind > > someone replacing most strlcpy()/snprintf() calls with calls to wrappers > > that > > ereport(ERROR) on truncation. Though as reliability problems go, this one > > has > > been minor. > > > > > Or maybe it would be better to just remove the restriction and just palloc > something of the correct size? > Although, that sounds like a much larger patch. I'd vote that the strlcpy > should be used in the meantime.
I agree that, in principle, dynamic allocation might be better still. I also agree that it would impose more code churn, for an awfully-narrow benefit. Barring objections, I will commit your latest patch with some comments about why truncation is harmless for those two particular calls. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
