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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
