Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration
Date
Msg-id 20200918082215.GA9826@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:39:08PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I didn't mean use strtol() to be able to process larger values, but for the
> error checking.  atoi() cannot detect any errors other than ERANGE. So if
> you are spending effort on making the option value parsing more robust,
> relying on atoi() will result in an incomplete solution.

Okay, after looking at that, here is v3.  This includes range checks
as well as errno checks based on strtol().  What do you think?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench calculates summary numbers a wrong way.