| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: suspicous looking code in copy.c |
| Date: | 2003-08-28 13:58:00 |
| Message-ID: | 12601.1062079080@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
>> shouldn't it be datasize -= avail ?
>>
> AFAIR this is a really outdated K&R style of -= . Compilers *should*
> recognize this (and will throw an ambiguity error if there's no space
> after =- ), but it's better to use the 'newer' style.
Dave didn't quote it accurately. It was actually
diff -r1.209 copy.c
435c435
< datasize = -avail;
---
> datasize -= avail;
which is just plain wrong ... the net effect being that COPY IN BINARY
would fail to cope with fields crossing message packet boundaries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bowlby | 2003-08-28 14:05:17 | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-28 13:49:47 | Re: suspicous looking code in copy.c |