Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Patch for snprintf problem (bug #1000650) 5-th try

From: Ludek Finstrle <luf(at)pzkagis(dot)cz>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for snprintf problem (bug #1000650) 5-th try
Date: 2006-06-14 07:50:54
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-odbc
Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:12:58PM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> >
> > I make patch againist CVS after yours huge commit. What's your opinion?
> >   
> Is the second parameter of snprintf_add needed ?
> Aren't the parameter values always strlen(the first parameter) ?

You're right. I think more about it and "add" means add to the end
so I changed the patch as you pointed.

> Is snprintf_len needed instead of snprintf ?
> Though the current code ignores snprintf errors, it's simply
> my negligence..

I'm voting for keeping safer snprintf_len. But I can change it if
you wish.

New patch attached.



In response to


pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Ludek FinstrleDate: 2006-06-14 08:09:34
Subject: Re: CVS and open cursor
Previous:From: noreplyDate: 2006-06-14 07:49:16
Subject: [ psqlodbc-Bugs-1000414 ] file based dns does not connect

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group