Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > A wholesale replacement of strncpy() calls is probably worth doing --
> > replacing them with strlcpy() if the source string is NUL-terminated,
> > and I suppose memcpy() otherwise.
>
> What I'd like to do immediately is put in strlcpy() and hit the two or
> three places I think are performance-relevant. I agree with trying to
> get rid of StrNCpy/strncpy calls over the long run, but it's just code
> beautification and probably not appropriate for beta.
Added to TODO:
* Use strlcpy() rather than our StrNCpy() macro
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +