On 02.09.24 21:56, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
I think we can apply these patches now to check this off the list of
not-thread-safe functions to check.
+1 for the first patch. I'm less happy with
- static char errbuf[36];
+ static char errbuf[128];
As a minor point
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I think we can apply these patches now to check this off the list of
> not-thread-safe functions to check.
+1 for the first patch. I'm less happy with
- static char errbuf[36];
+ static char errbuf[128];
As a minor point, shouldn't this be
+ stati
There are only a few (not necessarily thread-safe) strerror() calls in
the backend; most other potential users use %m in a format string.
In two cases, the reason for using strerror() was that we needed to
print the error message twice, and so errno has to be reset for the
second time. And/or
