From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using the return value of strlcpy() and strlcat() |
Date: | 2019-03-14 13:50:41 |
Message-ID: | 24531.1552571441@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> We should have maybe thought a bit harder when we put that strlcpy
> code into the codebase and considered if we might have been better off
> inventing our own function that just returns what it did copy instead
> of what it would have.
Well, strlcpy is (somewhat) standardized; we didn't just invent it
off the cuff. I thought a little bit about whether it would be worth
having a variant version with a different return value, but concluded
that having YA strcpy variant would more likely be a dangerous source
of thinkos than something that was actually helpful. Otherwise I'd
have given Ashwin a more positive reaction...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-14 13:55:06 | Re: Timeout parameters |
Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2019-03-14 13:37:04 | Re: Suggestions on message transfer among backends |