Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: xlog location arithmetic

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xlog location arithmetic
Date: 2012-03-09 12:11:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 00:53, 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.
> Ah, good point. No, that's the reason I was missing :-)
> Patch applied, thanks!

Thanks for committing the patch!

Euler proposed one more patch upthread, which replaces pg_size_pretty(bigint)
with pg_size_pretty(numeric) so that pg_size_pretty(pg_xlog_location_diff())
succeeds. It's also worth committing this patch?


Fujii Masao
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-03-09 12:20:33
Subject: Re: pg_stats_recovery view
Previous:From: Thom BrownDate: 2012-03-09 11:53:38
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group