On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:59:03 AM CEST Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Well, I don't have much to do during a train travel next week. I'll look into it and post my results here.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.