From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: using explicit_bzero
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:17:17 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9902.1563820532.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:35:32 -0400
Message-ID: <9903.1563820532@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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