| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mats Kindahl <mats(at)timescale(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability |
| Date: | 2024-02-09 20:08:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20240209200817.rmmacscv2j4tqegf@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-02-09 14:04:29 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32". But I agree that
> >> assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad. I think we need
> >> a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t().
> >
> > Do we want to have something similar for "int" as well? It seems to be
> > quite common and even though it usually is an int32, it does not have to be.
>
> I don't think we need separate functions for int and int32. As Tom noted,
> we assume they are the same.
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-02-09 20:08:28 | Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability |
| Previous Message | Pavel Luzanov | 2024-02-09 20:08:11 | Re: Add semi-join pushdown to postgres_fdw |