On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 00:53, Euler Taveira de Oliveira > <eu...@timbira.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? http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f315f6c.8030...@timbira.com Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers