Re: libpq stricter integer parsing

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq stricter integer parsing
Date: 2018-09-11 17:03:41
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1809111851510.13887@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> + <para>...</para>
> I would leave this out. We don't need to document every single
> refinement of parsing rules. This might better belong in the release notes.

Why not, I'd be fine with that. The fact that the libpq parser was quite
fuzzy was not documented, the behavior was really a side effect of the
implementation which never suggested that it would work.

>> + appendPQExpBuffer(&conn->errorMessage,
>> + libpq_gettext("invalid value for keyword \"%s\"\n"),
>> + context);
> Add the actual invalid value to the error message.


Attached Michael's simplified version updated with your remarks.


Attachment Content-Type Size
libpq-strict-atoi-4.patch text/x-diff 3.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2018-09-11 20:13:15 Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-09-11 16:51:36 Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily