From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Remove one use of IDENT_USERNAME_MAX
In-reply-to: <eedd3c43-ed87-3c84-de36-07a83ca94265@2ndquadrant.com>
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 29 Oct 2019 08:10:28 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <13091.1572359640.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 10:34:00 -0400
Message-ID: <13092.1572359640@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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.

			regards, tom lane