From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT |
Date: | 2019-02-17 23:53:41 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9e=k4qkqQqzrkVe+LJw665dDbfx2QRq57OcGUOOZsz4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 19:36, Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:20 AM David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Reviewing pg_dump-rows-per-insert-option-v14.
>>
>> Also, maybe one for Fabien (because he seems keen on keeping the
>> --rows-per-insert validation code)
>>
>> strtol() returns a long. dump_inserts is an int, so on machines where
>> sizeof(long) == 8 and sizeof(int) == 4 (most machines, these days) the
>> validation is not bulletproof. This could lead to:
>>
>> $ pg_dump --rows-per-insert=2147483648
>> pg_dump: rows-per-insert must be a positive number
>
>
> fixed
Thanks.
I see you didn't touch the tests yet, so I'll set this back to waiting
on author.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-18 00:04:22 | Re: Re: BUG #15629: Typo in Documentation |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-17 23:49:50 | Re: Add missing CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS table_name AS EXECUTE query; |