Re: Using the return value of strlcpy() and strlcat()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>
Cc: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Using the return value of strlcpy() and strlcat()
Date: 2019-03-14 01:57:13
Message-ID: 32001.1552528633@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't think that's a safe transformation: what strlcpy returns is
>> strlen(src), which might be different from what it was actually
>> able to fit into the destination.
>> Sure, they're equivalent if no truncation occurred; but if we were
>> 100.00% sure of no truncation, we'd likely not bother with strlcpy.

> So, if return value < length (3rd argument) we should be able to use the
> return value and avoid the strlen, else do the strlen ?

Mmm ... if there's a way to do it that's not messy and typo-prone,
maybe. But I'm dubious that the potential gain is worth complicating
the code. The strings involved aren't usually all that long.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-03-14 02:19:16 Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2019-03-14 01:44:57 RE: Timeout parameters