On 09/10/2014 04:35 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 9/10/14 1:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/10/2014 02:26 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
So I wonder if I shouldn't try and instead keep the
code closer to what it is in HEAD right now; I could call
enlargeStringInfo() first, then hand out a pointer to b64_encode (or
b64_decode()) and finally increment StringInfoData.len by how much was
actually written.  That would keep the code changes a lot smaller, too.


Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

OK, I've attemped to do that in the attached.  I'm pretty sure I didn't
get all of the overflows right, so someone should probably take a really
good look at it.  (I'm not too confident the original code got them
right either, but whatever).

Looks good, committed. It might've been a tad more efficient to return the StringInfo buffer directly from pgp_armor/dearmor, and avoid the extra palloc and memcpy, but this isn't performance critical enough for it to really matter.

Are you planning to post the main patch rebased on top of this soon? As in the next day or two? Otherwise I'll mark this as "Returned with feedback" for this commitfest.

- Heikki



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

Reply via email to