Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRxzt-0004hk-Qj for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:08:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRxzs-0007H8-Oh for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:08:32 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRxzs-0007H1-Ib for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:08:32 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRxzo-0002PP-Ba for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:08:31 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 131E8Mkk3396577; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 10:08:22 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org'" cc: "iwata.aya@fujitsu.com" , "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" , "'Kyotaro Horiguchi'" , "k.jamison@fujitsu.com" , "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: libpq debug log In-reply-to: <20210401124850.GA19247@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20210401124850.GA19247@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to "'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org'" message dated "Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:48:50 -0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3396575.1617286102.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 10:08:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3396576.1617286102@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk "'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org'" writes: > Eh, so I forgot to strdup(optarg[optind]). Apparently that works fine > in glibc but other getopt implementations are likely not so friendly. Hmm ... interesting theory, but I don't think I buy it, since the program isn't doing anything that should damage argv[]. I guess we'll soon find out. regards, tom lane