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

Re: xlog location arithmetic

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xlog location arithmetic
Date: 2012-03-04 11:26:36
Message-ID: CABUevEy3nqhMvyGQRbYYSdYjuB1B_Kgc_kxHBnZqdUMw+z6c1Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 00:53, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
<euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
> On 25-02-2012 09:23, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Do we even *need* the validate_xlog_location() function? If we just
>> remove those calls, won't we still catch all the incorrectly formatted
>> ones in the errors of the sscanf() calls? Or am I too deep into
>> weekend-mode and missing something obvious?
>>
> sscanf() is too fragile for input sanity check. Try
> pg_xlog_location_diff('12/3', '-10/0'), for example. I won't object removing
> that function if you protect xlog location input from silly users.

Ah, good point. No, that's the reason I was missing :-)

Patch applied, thanks!

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-03-04 11:26:56
Subject: Re: xlog location arithmetic
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-03-04 09:59:10
Subject: Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"

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