On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 07:21, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 25-02-2012 09:23, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Do we even *need* the validate_xlog_location() function? If we just
>>> remove those calls, won't we still catch all the incorrectly formatted
>>> ones in the errors of the sscanf() calls? Or am I too deep into
>>> weekend-mode and missing something obvious?
>> sscanf() is too fragile for input sanity check. Try
>> pg_xlog_location_diff('12/3', '-10/0'), for example. I won't object removing
>> that function if you protect xlog location input from silly users.
> After this patch will have been committed, it would be better to change
> pg_xlogfile_name() and pg_xlogfile_name_offset() so that they use
> the validate_xlog_location() function to validate the input.
And I've done this part as well.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Brendan Jurd||Date: 2012-03-04 11:55:33|
|Subject: Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match"|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2012-03-04 11:26:36|
|Subject: Re: xlog location arithmetic|