From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: using explicit_bzero
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:35:32 -0400
Message-ID: <9903.1563820532@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2751372e-e443-479a-0403-c414eae8e14e@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <20190717211931.GA906@alvherre.pgsql>
<25152.1563403539@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<2751372e-e443-479a-0403-c414eae8e14e@2ndquadrant.com>
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-07-18 00:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for using the C11-standard name, even if that's not anywhere
>> in the real world yet.
> ISTM that a problem is that you cannot implement a replacement
> memset_s() as a wrapper around explicit_bzero(), unless you also want to
> implement the bound checking stuff. (The "s"/safe in this family of
> functions refers to the bound checking, not the cannot-be-optimized-away
> property.) The other way around it is easier.
Oh, hm.
> Also, the "s" family of functions appears to be a quagmire of
> controversy and incompatibility, so it's perhaps better to stay away
> from it for the time being.
Fair enough.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: using explicit_bzero
In-Reply-To: <9903.1563820532@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox