"Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com> writes:
> Just wondering - are any of these cases where a memcpy() would work
> just as well? Or are you not sure that the source string is at least
> 64 bytes in length?
In most cases, we're pretty sure that it's *not* --- it'll just be a
palloc'd C string.
I'm disinclined to fool with the restriction that namestrcpy zero-pad
Name values, because they might end up on disk, and allowing random
memory contents to get written out is ungood from a security point of
view. However, it's entirely possible that it'd be a bit faster to do
a MemSet followed by strlcpy than to use strncpy for zero-padding.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gevik Babakhani||Date: 2006-09-28 16:00:19|
|Subject: Re: Row IS NULL question|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-28 15:45:32|
|Subject: Re: Row IS NULL question |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-09-28 17:24:30|
|Subject: Re: Coding style for emacs|
|Previous:||From: Strong, David||Date: 2006-09-28 14:51:36|
|Subject: Re: Faster StrNCpy|