X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B55299A for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:31:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78502-09 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:31:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107035298D for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:31:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6CEVMkH019093; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:31:22 -0400 (EDT) To: Tim Jackson Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: C set return function differences on 8.0?]] In-reply-to: <42D2E683.5080302@ints.com> References: <42D2E683.5080302@ints.com> Comments: In-reply-to Tim Jackson message dated "Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:37:07 -0700" Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:31:22 -0400 Message-ID: <19092.1121178682@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/22 X-Sequence-Number: 5658 Tim Jackson writes: > The full so code is 4000 lines and caused the news group to reject the mail > , but here is the basic format with the piece that builds the record replaced > by hardcoded values. With all those unchecked strcat's and strcpy's going on, it seems like an excellent bet that you're overrunning one or another buffer and clobbering memory that doesn't belong to you. Compiling the backend with --enable-cassert might help in localizing the problem. regards, tom lane