public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
To: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Thiago Caserta <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Replace sprintf() with snprintf() in libpq for safety Anexo: o arquivo
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:54:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKFQuwY5RcdcgCbCRBC5g0k9sbNspNbtyRgWAJBJhkb_pfX1RA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CPYP284MB1221DDF51A8E74C19F07F74EC948A@CPYP284MB1221.BRAP284.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<[email protected]>

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 4:33 PM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2026-Mar-24, Thiago Caserta wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch that converts several sprintf() calls to
> > snprintf() in libpq client library code.
>
> I'm not sure we should take a patch with a tag attributing authorship to
> an LLM owned by a commercial entity.


Agreed.  As with a book author, any bad code, decisions, or other mistakes
are solely the fault of the submitting author.  As is the good stuff.
Ideally the author has confirmed it is good (in their own opinion) since
they expect others to do so as well as part of the review and commit
process.

It is in fact a reputational thing for authors to take full ownership of
what they submit.


> Do we really want to be accepting code patches written by tools that
> make the most obvious code worse than before?  I am quite scared of the
> quality of code of medium complexity written by this tool.
>
>
I'd say take this as an opportunity to teach (or not) just as if the author
of patch claimed to write the entire thing without AI assistance.  But it
would definitely be reasonable for a hastily produced patch that doesn't
pass muster to be hastily rejected on such grounds.  We have plenty to
review and if this patch wouldn't have existed without LLM assistance then
unless it sparks the interest in someone to go and clean it up anyway we
are not really any worse off being quick to state that it doesn't meet our
standards.

Otherwise, while there is a patch, maybe just treat it as a simple
suggestion with an example.

David J.

view thread (2+ messages)

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Replace sprintf() with snprintf() in libpq for safety Anexo: o arquivo
  In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwY5RcdcgCbCRBC5g0k9sbNspNbtyRgWAJBJhkb_pfX1RA@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox