Re: [BUGS] Fix for buffer overflow ready [was: Fwd: Bug#247306: odbc-postgresql: SIGSEGV with long inputs (> 10000 bytes)]

2004-05-13 Thread Martin Pitt
Hi! On 2004-05-13 19:43 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Silently truncating various pieces of information is probably not the > right thing. But IMHO still better than overwriting arbitrary other data and code. If an user supplies bogus input, he cannot expect to get something sane out. > Wh

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1150: grant options not properly checked

2004-05-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: > After that, you get to the General Rules, which pretty clearly say > that trying to grant privileges you don't have grant option for is > just a warning and not an error condition. (Such privileges will not > be in the set of "identified privilege descriptors".) > > AFAICS the sp

Re: [BUGS] Fix for buffer overflow ready [was: Fwd: Bug#247306: odbc-postgresql: SIGSEGV with long inputs (> 10000 bytes)]

2004-05-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Martin Pitt wrote: > The problem is that make_string() in misc.c does not check whether > the target buffer is big enough to hold the copied string. > > I added a bufsize parameter to make_string() and used it in all calls > to it. I tried it with my php4 crash test script and now it works > proper

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1151: Initdb fails ...

2004-05-13 Thread Laurent FAILLIE
--- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > Hm. It's starting to sound like an actual bug --- > though whether it's > in HPUX 11.00, gcc, or Postgres is difficult to > guess. Arg :-( > The Postgres > code is certainly known to work on many platforms, > but it could have > an unsuspected p