David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> We should have maybe thought a bit harder when we put that strlcpy
> code into the codebase and considered if we might have been better off
> inventing our own function that just returns what it did copy instead
> of what it would have.
Well, strlcpy is (somewhat) standardized; we didn't just invent it
off the cuff. I thought a little bit about whether it would be worth
having a variant version with a different return value, but concluded
that having YA strcpy variant would more likely be a dangerous source
of thinkos than something that was actually helpful. Otherwise I'd
have given Ashwin a more positive reaction...
regards, tom lane