Em sex., 18 de out. de 2024 às 06:41, Peter Eisentraut
escreveu:
> On 16.10.24 09:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 15.10.24 14:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> >> I also wonder, if other places touched by 5d2e1cc11 need corrections
> too.
> >> I played with
> >> PG_COLOR=always PG_COLORS="error=01
On 16.10.24 09:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 15.10.24 14:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
I also wonder, if other places touched by 5d2e1cc11 need corrections too.
I played with
PG_COLOR=always PG_COLORS="error=01;31" .../initdb
and it looks like this free() call in pg_logging_init():
Em qui., 17 de out. de 2024 às 07:30, Alexander Lakhin
escreveu:
> Hello Ranier,
>
> 16.10.2024 14:14, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 16 de out. de 2024 às 04:45, Peter Eisentraut <
> pe...@eisentraut.org> escreveu:
>
>>
>> This wouldn't fix anything, I think. If colors is NULL, then strsep()
Hello Ranier,
16.10.2024 14:14, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em qua., 16 de out. de 2024 às 04:45, Peter Eisentraut
escreveu:
This wouldn't fix anything, I think. If colors is NULL, then strsep()
already returns NULL, so the added code does nothing.
If *colors* is NULL, then the delimiter
Em qua., 16 de out. de 2024 às 04:45, Peter Eisentraut
escreveu:
> On 15.10.24 14:07, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > I also wonder, if other places touched by 5d2e1cc11 need corrections
> > too.
> > I played with
> > PG_COLOR=always PG_COLORS="error=01;31" .../initdb
> >
> > and it
On 15.10.24 14:07, Ranier Vilela wrote:
I also wonder, if other places touched by 5d2e1cc11 need corrections
too.
I played with
PG_COLOR=always PG_COLORS="error=01;31" .../initdb
and it looks like this free() call in pg_logging_init():
char *colors = st
On 15.10.24 14:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
I also wonder, if other places touched by 5d2e1cc11 need corrections too.
I played with
PG_COLOR=always PG_COLORS="error=01;31" .../initdb
and it looks like this free() call in pg_logging_init():
char *colors = strdup(pg_colors_env);
Em ter., 15 de out. de 2024 às 09:00, Alexander Lakhin
escreveu:
> Hello Ranier and Peter,
>
> 15.10.2024 14:44, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>
>
> Em ter., 15 de out. de 2024 às 03:45, Peter Eisentraut <
> pe...@eisentraut.org> escreveu:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the analysis. I think moreover we *only* nee
Hello Ranier and Peter,
15.10.2024 14:44, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em ter., 15 de out. de 2024 às 03:45, Peter Eisentraut
escreveu:
Thanks for the analysis. I think moreover we *only* need to check the
"stringp" for NULL, not the return value of strsep(), which would never
be NULL
Em ter., 15 de out. de 2024 às 03:45, Peter Eisentraut
escreveu:
> On 10.10.24 14:59, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Please look at the SCRAM secret, which breaks parse_scram_secret(),
> > perhaps because strsep() doesn't return NULL where strtok() did:
> >
> > CREATE ROLE r PASSWORD
> >
On 10.10.24 14:59, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Please look at the SCRAM secret, which breaks parse_scram_secret(),
perhaps because strsep() doesn't return NULL where strtok() did:
CREATE ROLE r PASSWORD
'SCRAM-
SHA-256$4096:hpFyHTUsSWcR7O9P$LgZFIt6Oqdo27ZFKbZ2nV+=vtnYM995pDh9ca6WSi
Hi Alexander,
Em qui., 10 de out. de 2024 às 02:00, Alexander Lakhin
escreveu:
> Hello Peter,
>
> 23.07.2024 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > This has been committed. Thanks.
>
> Please look at the SCRAM secret, which breaks parse_scram_secret(),
> perhaps because strsep() doesn't return NULL
Hello Peter,
23.07.2024 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This has been committed. Thanks.
Please look at the SCRAM secret, which breaks parse_scram_secret(),
perhaps because strsep() doesn't return NULL where strtok() did:
CREATE ROLE r PASSWORD
'SCRAM-SHA-256$4096:hpFyHTUsSWcR7O9P$LgZFIt6Oqd
On 08.07.24 07:45, David Steele wrote:
On 6/24/24 19:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 24.06.24 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 11:48:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote:
I found another implementation of strsep, it
On 6/24/24 19:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 24.06.24 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 11:48:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote:
I found another implementation of strsep, it seems lighter to me.
I will attach it fo
On 24.06.24 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 11:48:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote:
I found another implementation of strsep, it seems lighter to me.
I will attach it for consideration, however, I have not done a
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 11:48:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >> I found another implementation of strsep, it seems lighter to me.
> >> I will attach it for consideration, however, I have not done any testing.
>
> > Yeah, surely
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> I found another implementation of strsep, it seems lighter to me.
>> I will attach it for consideration, however, I have not done any testing.
> Yeah, surely there are many possible implementations. I'm thinking,
> since we a
On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote:
But I would like to see more const char * where this is possible.
For example, in pg_locale.c
IMO, the token variable can be const char *.
At least strchr expects a const char * as the first parameter.
This would not be future-proof. In C23, if you pas
At Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:18:28 +0200, Peter Eisentraut
wrote in
> Under the topic of getting rid of thread-unsafe functions in the
> backend [0], here is a patch series to deal with strtok().
>
> Of course, strtok() is famously not thread-safe and can be replaced by
> strtok_r(). But it also has
Em ter., 18 de jun. de 2024 às 04:18, Peter Eisentraut
escreveu:
> Under the topic of getting rid of thread-unsafe functions in the backend
> [0], here is a patch series to deal with strtok().
>
> Of course, strtok() is famously not thread-safe and can be replaced by
> strtok_r(). But it also ha
Under the topic of getting rid of thread-unsafe functions in the backend
[0], here is a patch series to deal with strtok().
Of course, strtok() is famously not thread-safe and can be replaced by
strtok_r(). But it also has the wrong semantics in some cases, because
it considers adjacent delim
22 matches
Mail list logo