Re: Potential buffer overrun in spell.c's CheckAffix()

I wrote:
> I suppose we could replace the strcpy with
> memcpy(newword, word, len - Affix->replen);
> and then we would not need the "len >= 2 * MAXNORMLEN" test
> and both paths could share the same check. There's something
> to be said for that, though it would be changing the logic to
> a greater extent than just "add some safety checks".

Concretely, about like this, where I also tried to make the actual
byte-copying steps a bit more uniform.

regards, tom lane