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?


Fujii Masao
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to