Re: Allow escape in application_name
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Allow escape in application_name |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 91374436-637b-1aad-0f60-a1fc8b9f92e2@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Allow escape in application_name (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Allow escape in application_name
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/12/17 16:50, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > Thus rewriting the code we're focusing on like the following would > make sense to me. > >> if (strcmp(keywords[i], "application_name") == 0) >> { >> values[i] = process_pgfdw_appname(values[i]); >> >> /* >> * Break if we have a non-empty string. If we end up failing with >> * all candidates, fallback_application_name would work. >> */ >> if (appanme[0] != '\0') >> break; >> } I'm ok to remove the check "values[i] != NULL", but think that it's better to keep the other check "*(values[i]) != '\0'"as it is. Because *(values[i]) can be null character and it's a waste of cycles to call process_pgfdw_appname() in thatcase. > Thanks for revisiting. > >> #1. use "[unknown]" >> #2. add the check but not use "[unknown]" >> #3. don't add the check (i.e., what the current patch does) >> >> For now, I'm ok to choose #2 or #3. > > As I said before, given that we don't show "unkown" or somethig like > as the fallback, I'm fine with not having a NULL check since anyway it > bumps into SEGV immediately. In short I'm fine with #3 here. Yep, let's use #3 approach. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: