On 2020-01-11 17:47, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 5:44 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 08:21:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-06 21:00, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>> +0.5 to avoid calling OidInputFunctionCall()
>>>>
>>>> Or just directly using atol() instead of atoi()? Well maybe not
>>>> directly but in a small wrapper that verifies it's not bigger than an
>>>> unsigned?
>>>>
>>>> Unlike in cases where we use oidin etc, we are dealing with data that
>>>> is "mostly trusted" here, aren't we? Meaning we could call atol() on
>>>> it, and throw an error if it overflows, and be done with it?
>>>> Subdirectories in the data directory aren't exactly "untrusted enduser
>>>> data"...
>>>
>>> Yeah, it looks like we are using strtoul() without additional error checking
>>> in similar situations, so here is a patch doing it like that.
>>
>>> - true, isDbDir ? pg_atoi(lastDir + 1, sizeof(Oid), 0)
:InvalidOid);
>>> + true, isDbDir ? (Oid) strtoul(lastDir + 1, NULL, 10)
:InvalidOid);
>>
>> Looking at some other code, I just discovered the atooid() macro that already
>> does the same, maybe it'd be better for consistency to use that instead?
>
> +1. Whie it does the same thing, consistency is good! :)
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
