Re: Tom Lane 2014-12-16 <14615.1418694...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > > On 12/15/14, 1:39 PM, Christoph Berg wrote: > >> Well, if it's not interesting, let's just forget it. Sorry. > > > At the risk of sticking my head in the lions mouth... this is the kind of > > response that deters people from contributing anything to the project, > > including reviewing patches. A simple "thanks, but we feel it's already > > clear enough that there can't be anywhere close to INT_MAX timezones" would > > have sufficed. > > Yeah, I need to apologize. I was a bit on edge today due to the release > wrap (which you may have noticed wasn't going too smoothly), and should > not have responded like that.
Hi, maybe I should apologize as well for submitting this right at the time of the release... > I also remain curious as to what sort of tool would complain about this > particular code and not the N other nearly-identical binary-search loops > in the PG sources, most of which deal with data structures potentially > far larger than the timezone data ... He said he found it in manual code review, not using a tool. But anyway, I do agree this is a very minor issue and there's much more interesting things to spend time on. I promise to send in more severe security issues next time :) Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
