On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:45:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Karel, do you plan to use pstrndup for some purpose? I assume so.
I think PostgreSQL should supports basic operation with
allocation/strings if it's open for users' C functions and we expect
our own memory system usage.
> I am not familiar with strndup. If the spec is like strncpy, I would
> vote against including it ... strncpy is so broken that we had to invent
> our own variant ...
POSIX strncpy() is different, a result from strncpy needn't be zero
terminated. You're right it's horrible function.
The result of strndup() is always zero terminated. It's more safe and
strndup() is binary safe because it doesn't check something in input
string. The pstrndup() is based on PostgreSQL memory managment.
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Fabien COELHO||Date: 2004-03-22 08:40:54|
|Subject: Re: Syntax error reporting (was Re: [PATCHES] syntax error position|
|Previous:||From: Manfred Spraul||Date: 2004-03-22 06:12:59|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq thread safety|