Re: Invisible PROMPT2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Invisible PROMPT2
Date: 2019-11-18 23:09:05
Message-ID: 1233.1574118545@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Right, a PQdsplen()/PQmblen() loop works nicely, as attached.

> I spotted a potential problem: I suppose I could write a PROMPT1 that
> includes an invalid multibyte sequence at the end of the buffer and
> trick PQmblen() or PQdsplen() into reading a few bytes past the end.
> Two defences against that would be (1) use pg_encoding_verifymb()
> instead of PQmblen() and (2) use pg_encoding_max_length() to make sure
> you can't get close enough to the end of the buffer, but neither of
> those functions are available to psql.

You should follow the logic in pg_wcswidth: compute PQmblen() first,
and bail out if it's more than the remaining string length, otherwise
it's ok to apply PQdsplen().

It might be a good idea to explicitly initialize last_prompt1_width to
zero, for clarity.

Should the user docs explicitly say "of the same width as the most recent
output of PROMPT1", as you have in the comments? That seems a more
precise specification, and it will eliminate some questions people will
otherwise ask.

LGTM otherwise.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maciek Sakrejda 2019-11-18 23:39:33 Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-11-18 22:12:54 Re: physical slot xmin dependency on logical slot?