> On 24 Oct 2023, at 22:34, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> I went ahead and applied this on master, thanks for review! Now to see if
>> there will be any noticeable difference in resource usage.
>
> I think that tools like Coverity are likely to whine about your
> use of sprintf instead of snprintf. Sure, it's perfectly safe,
> but that won't stop the no-sprintf-ever crowd from complaining.
Fair point, that's probably quite likely to happen. I can apply an snprintf()
conversion change like this in the two places introduced by this:
- sprintf(s, "%d", port);
+ sprintf(s, sizeof(s), "%d", port);
--
Daniel Gustafsson