On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 6:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:25 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > While updating a patch, I noticed that the replication slot stats > > patch (9868167500) put some somewhat doubious codes. > > > > In pgstat_recv_replslot, an assertion like the following exists: > > > > > idx = pgstat_replslot_index(msg->m_slotname, !msg->m_drop); > > .. > > > Assert(idx >= 0 && idx < max_replication_slots); > > > > But the idx should be 0..(max_replication_slots - 1). > > > > Right. > > > > > In the same function the following code assumes that the given "char > > *name" has the length of NAMEDATALEN. It actually is, but that > > assumption seems a bit bogus. I think it should use strlcpy instead. > > > > Agreed.
+1 The commit uses memcpy in the same way in other places too, for instance in pgstat_report_replslot_drop(). Should we fix all of them? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
