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

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

From: Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Ludek Finstrle <luf(at)pzkagis(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for snprintf problem (bug #1000650) 5-th try
Date: 2006-06-14 21:28:59
Message-ID: 44907F9B.2070106@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> 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.
>   

OK please commit it.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2006-06-14 21:43:15
Subject: Re: Memory Leak ?
Previous:From: Campbell, GregDate: 2006-06-14 21:07:18
Subject: Re: float8 auto truncation issue in ODBC v. PGSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group