On 2019-Dec-04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-12-04 11:40:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I think this should be pretty uncontroversial, but wanted to give a
> >> heads-up outside that thread. I attach the patch here for completeness.
>
> > I'd just provide pnstrdup() in the frontend, without adding strndup().
>
> +1 --- seems like a bunch more mechanism than is warranted. Let's
> just open-code it in pnstrdup. We can rely on strnlen, since that's
> already supported, and there's not much more there beyond that.
I can get behind that ... it makes the patch a lot smaller. I'm gonna
send an updated version in a jiffy.
> > I also see no point in adding both pnstrdup() and pg_strndup(). I'm fine
> > with moving towards pg_strndup(), but then we just ought to remove
> > pnstrdup().
>
> There's a fair number of uses of pnstrdup in the backend. While it
> wouldn't be too painful to rename them, I'm not sure I see the point.
> (What I'd really argue for, if we did rename, is "pstrndup".)
*shrug* I also looked for pstrndup() first. And Peter E also in
https://postgr.es/m/1339713732.11971.79.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
submitted an implementation of pstrndup(). I'm not opposed to renaming
it, but I hesitate to do it at the same time as putting it in pgport.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services