On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:49 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> 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
Thanks!
