From 16d3dbe2f30ab40a78873029d33aeed2765fa0d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:02:11 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix potentially-unportable code in contrib/adminpack.
Spelling access(2)'s second argument as "2" is just horrid.
POSIX makes no promises as to the numeric values of W_OK and related
macros. Even if it accidentally works as intended on every supported
platform, it's still unreadable and inconsistent with adjacent code.
In passing, don't spell "NULL" as "0" either. Yes, that's legal C;
no, it's not project style.
Back-patch, just in case the unportability is real and not theoretical.
(Most likely, even if a platform had different bit assignments for
access()'s modes, there'd not be an observable behavior difference
here; but I'm being paranoid today.)
---
contrib/adminpack/adminpack.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/contrib/adminpack/adminpack.c b/contrib/adminpack/adminpack.c
index f3f8e7f1e4..f1ae4b8285 100644
--- a/contrib/adminpack/adminpack.c
+++ b/contrib/adminpack/adminpack.c
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ pg_file_rename(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
fn1 = convert_and_check_filename(PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP(0), false);
fn2 = convert_and_check_filename(PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP(1), false);
if (PG_ARGISNULL(2))
- fn3 = 0;
+ fn3 = NULL;
else
fn3 = convert_and_check_filename(PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP(2), false);
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ pg_file_rename(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
PG_RETURN_BOOL(false);
}
- rc = access(fn3 ? fn3 : fn2, 2);
+ rc = access(fn3 ? fn3 : fn2, W_OK);
if (rc >= 0 || errno != ENOENT)
{
ereport(ERROR,
--
2.40.0