Subject: Re: Remove one use of IDENT_USERNAME_MAX
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <c798fba5-8b71-4f27-c78e-37714037ea31@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20191028.141008.1808344564081861818.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <14311.1572270354@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <eedd3c43-ed87-3c84-de36-07a83ca94265@2ndquadrant.com>
 <13092.1572359640@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <062cc5e1-554e-7f5d-b7ea-1d9888679680@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:19:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13092.1572359640@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-10-29 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 2019-10-28 14:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> In think one of the reasons for the coding is the fact that *pw is
>>>> described to be placed in the static area, which can be overwritten by
>>>> succeeding calls to getpw*() functions.
> 
>>> Good point ... so maybe pstrdup instead of using a fixed-size buffer?
> 
>> Maybe.  Or we just decide that check_usermap() is not allowed to call
>> getpw*().  It's just a string-matching routine, so it doesn't have any
>> such business anyway.
> 
> I'm okay with that as long as you add a comment describing this
> assumption.

Committed with a pstrdup().  That seemed more consistent with other code 
in that file.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services