Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1++Aj3LtFjf7aX2LS8=WCw3p-_34afCXffbMPH=-RgfSA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 4:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > OK. I have implemented this reported [1] potential buffer overrun
> > > using the constraining strlcpy, because the GID limitation of 200
> > > bytes is already mentioned in the documentation [2].
> > >
> >
> > This will work but I think it is better to use sizeof gid buffer as we
> > are using in ParseCommitRecord() and ParseAbortRecord(). Tomorrow, if
> > due to some unforeseen reason if we change the size of gid buffer to
> > be different than the GIDSIZE then it will work seamlessly.
> >
>
> Modified as requested. PSA patch v2.
>

LGTM. I'll push this tomorrow unless Tom or someone else has any comments.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: corruption of WAL page header is never reported
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Why ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name='none') requires subscription disabled?