On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:23:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In short, as presented, the patch looks acceptable to me. Are there
> any objections to apply it on HEAD?
And committed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:35:12PM +, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Good point, I've updated the patch to include those as well.
I have been reviewing this patch, and the change in pg_waldump is
actually a good thing, as we could finish with a crash if strdup()
returns NULL as the pointer gets di
On Monday, April 29, 2019 3:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:47:27AM +, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > Reading code I noticed that we in a few rare instances use strdup() in
> > frontend
> > utilities instead of pg_strdup(). Is there a reason for not using
> > pg_s
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:47:27AM +, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Reading code I noticed that we in a few rare instances use strdup() in
> frontend
> utilities instead of pg_strdup(). Is there a reason for not using pg_strdup()
> consistently as per the attached patch?
I think that it is good
Reading code I noticed that we in a few rare instances use strdup() in frontend
utilities instead of pg_strdup(). Is there a reason for not using pg_strdup()
consistently as per the attached patch?
cheers ./daniel
frontend_strdup.patch
Description: Binary data
