Hi Tom,
> I looked at this and am inclined to reject it. [...]
OK, thanks. Then we are done with this thread. I closed the
corresponding CF entry.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
Aleksander Alekseev writes:
> This leaves us one patch to deal with.
> [ v4-0001-Pass-Size-size_t-as-a-2nd-argument-of-snprintf.patch ]
I looked at this and am inclined to reject it. None of these
places realistically need to deal with strings longer than
MAXPATHLEN or so, let alone multiple gig
Hi Amit,
> Pushed.
Thanks!
> I don't have a strong opinion on whether we should be really worried
> by this. But in case we do, here is the patch.
This leaves us one patch to deal with.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v4-0001-Pass-Size-size_t-as-a-2nd-argument-of-snprintf.patch
Descrip
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 7:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 5:04 PM Aleksander Alekseev
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > > PSA patch v3 to combine the different replication origin name
> > > formatting in a single function ReplicationOriginNameForLogicalRep as
> > > suggested
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 5:04 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> > PSA patch v3 to combine the different replication origin name
> > formatting in a single function ReplicationOriginNameForLogicalRep as
> > suggested.
>
> LGTM except for minor issues with the formatting; fixed.
>
LGTM
Hi Peter,
> PSA patch v3 to combine the different replication origin name
> formatting in a single function ReplicationOriginNameForLogicalRep as
> suggested.
LGTM except for minor issues with the formatting; fixed.
> I expect you can find more like just this if you look harder than I did.
Than
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:36 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> > I think it is better to use Size. Even though, it may not fail now as
> > the size of names for origin will always be much lesser but it is
> > better if we are consistent. If we agree with this, then as a first
> > patc
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:22 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
...
> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:23 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Can't we use the existing function ReplicationOriginNameForTablesync()
> > > > by passing relid as InvalidOid for this purpose? We need a check
> > > >
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:09 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > > Can't we use the existing function ReplicationOriginNameForTablesync()
> > > by passing relid as InvalidOid
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:09 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> ...
>
> > Can't we use the existing function ReplicationOriginNameForTablesync()
> > by passing relid as InvalidOid for this purpose? We need a check
> > inside to decide which name to
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
...
> Can't we use the existing function ReplicationOriginNameForTablesync()
> by passing relid as InvalidOid for this purpose? We need a check
> inside to decide which name to construct, otherwise, it should be
> fine. If we agree with this, t
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 2:06 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> > I think it is better to use Size. Even though, it may not fail now as
> > the size of names for origin will always be much lesser but it is
> > better if we are consistent. If we agree with this, then as a first
> > patc
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:36 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> > I think it is better to use Size. Even though, it may not fail now as
> > the size of names for origin will always be much lesser but it is
> > better if we are consistent. If we agree with this, then as a first
> > patc
Hi Amit,
> I think it is better to use Size. Even though, it may not fail now as
> the size of names for origin will always be much lesser but it is
> better if we are consistent. If we agree with this, then as a first
> patch, we can make it to use Size in existing places and then
> introduce thi
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:27 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> > PSA a patch to add a common function ReplicationOriginName
>
> The patch looks good to me.
>
> One nitpick I have is that the 2nd argument of snprintf is size_t
> while we are passing int's. Your patch is consistent wit
Hi Peter,
> PSA a patch to add a common function ReplicationOriginName
The patch looks good to me.
One nitpick I have is that the 2nd argument of snprintf is size_t
while we are passing int's. Your patch is consistent with the current
implementation of ReplicationOriginNameForTablesync() and sim
16 matches
Mail list logo
