On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet <p.p...@pinaraf.info> 
wrote:
> > Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer
> > parameters were not properly checked against invalid input.
> > It is not a critical issue, but this could be misleading for an user who
> > writes -z max or -s 0.5…
> > I've attached the patch to this mail. Should I add it to the next commit
> > fest or is it not needed for such small patches ?
> 
> A call to atoi is actually equivalent to strtol with the rounding:
> (int)strtol(str, (char **)NULL, 10);
> So I don't think this is worth caring.

The problem with atoi is that it simply ignores any invalid input and returns 
0 instead.
That's why I did this patch, because I did a typo when calling pg_basebackup 
and was not warned for an invalid input.
But it doesn't matter that much, so if you don't think that's interesting, no 
problem.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to