Re: (yet) more buffer paranoia - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: (yet) more buffer paranoia
Date
Msg-id 25619.1030164775@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: (yet) more buffer paranoia  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: (yet) more buffer paranoia  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I guess the question is where there are tons more.  If not, I think it
> would be wise to just clean it up so any future uses will look out of
> place.

Should I point out that Neil already managed to break the regression
tests on the eve of an emergency patch-release with a completely
unnecessary snprintf-ization of show_datestyle?

There *are* risks in changing working code, and while those risks may be
small, I don't see the point of taking them in places where the benefit
is provably zero.  If it's not obvious that a sprintf or similar can't
overflow its buffer, then by all means make it snprintf instead.  But
I don't hold with the idea that sprintf is ipso facto bad.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: (yet) more buffer paranoia
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: (yet) more buffer paranoia