On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:49 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2020-01-11 17:47, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 5:44 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 08:21:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>> On 2020-01-06 21:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>>>> +0.5 to avoid calling OidInputFunctionCall() > >>>> > >>>> Or just directly using atol() instead of atoi()? Well maybe not > >>>> directly but in a small wrapper that verifies it's not bigger than an > >>>> unsigned? > >>>> > >>>> Unlike in cases where we use oidin etc, we are dealing with data that > >>>> is "mostly trusted" here, aren't we? Meaning we could call atol() on > >>>> it, and throw an error if it overflows, and be done with it? > >>>> Subdirectories in the data directory aren't exactly "untrusted enduser > >>>> data"... > >>> > >>> Yeah, it looks like we are using strtoul() without additional error > >>> checking > >>> in similar situations, so here is a patch doing it like that. > >> > >>> - true, > >>> isDbDir ? pg_atoi(lastDir + 1, sizeof(Oid), 0) : InvalidOid); > >>> + true, > >>> isDbDir ? (Oid) strtoul(lastDir + 1, NULL, 10) : InvalidOid); > >> > >> Looking at some other code, I just discovered the atooid() macro that > >> already > >> does the same, maybe it'd be better for consistency to use that instead? > > > > +1. Whie it does the same thing, consistency is good! :) > > committed
Thanks!
