On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet <p.p...@pinaraf.info> wrote: > 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.
I agree. I think it would be worth going through and cleaning up every instance of this in the source tree. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
