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.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.