* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I didn't argue against s/strncpy/strlcpy/. That's clearly a sensible > > fix. > > I am arguing about introducing additional code and error messages about > > it, that need to be translated. And starting doing so in isolationtester > > of all places. > > I agree with Andres on this. Commit > 7cb964acb794078ef033cbf2e3a0e7670c8992a9 is the very definition of > overkill, and I don't want to see us starting to plaster the source > code with things like this. Converting strncpy to strlcpy seems > appropriate --- and sufficient.
Personally, I'd like to see better handling like this- but done in a way which minimizes impact to code and translators. A function like namecpy() (which I agree with Kevin about- curious that it's not used..) which handled the check, errmsg and exit seems reasonable to me, for the "userland" binaries (and perhaps the postmaster when doing command-line checking of, eg, -D) that need it. Still, I'm not offering to go do it, so take my feelings on it with that in mind. :) Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature