| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect usage of strtol, atoi for non-numeric junk inputs |
| Date: | 2021-07-21 13:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvoBw_Kk0XGOJwshnwq68gMn7aZPKgPMzWv5s+ddzhpCog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 00:44, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 12:32:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > I see both of these are limited to 64 on windows. Won't those fail on Windows?
>
> Yes, thanks, they would. I would just cut the range numbers from the
> expected output here. This does not matter in terms of coverage
> either.
Sounds good.
> x> I also wondered if it would be worth doing #define MAX_JOBS somewhere
> > away from the option parsing code. This part is pretty ugly:
>
> Agreed as well. pg_dump and pg_restore have their own idea of
> parallelism in parallel.{c.h}. What about putting MAX_JOBS in
> parallel.h then?
parallel.h looks ok to me.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-21 13:45:15 | Re: ORDER BY pushdowns seem broken in postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-07-21 13:13:26 | Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays) |