From: | "Aaron W(dot) Swenson" <titanofold(at)gentoo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix token exceeding NAMELEN |
Date: | 2015-05-15 01:07:57 |
Message-ID: | 20150515010757.GO5101@gengoff.gsmr1.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-13 18:16, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 17:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold(at)gentoo(dot)org> writes:
> > > Trying to build HEAD and ran into this issue building the docs:
> > > openjade:logicaldecoding.sgml:575:62:Q: length of name token must
> > > not exceed NAMELEN (44)
> > > openjade:replication-origins.sgml:87:67:Q: length of name token must
> > > not exceed NAMELEN (44)
> >
> > Hmm ... that's odd. I don't see any such failure here, and the buildfarm
> > members that build the docs aren't complaining either. What version of
> > openjade are you using exactly?
> >
> > > So, I've attached a patch that'll fix it.
> >
> > I have no particular objection to the patch as stated, but I'm just
> > wondering if this is the tip of a tool compatibility iceberg we were
> > not previously aware of.
> >
>
> I recall us hitting this with Slony documentation. The NAMELEN limit
> lay in the SGML/DocBook configuration that was configured at the
> distribution level, so that it differed (crucially) betwen Debian and
> Red Hat.
>
> Red Hat used to have a lower name length limit, and while overriding
> it was technically possible, it required modifying configuration that
> the distribution thought was owned by one of the SGML packages,
> and hence the modification seemed pretty inadvisable.
>
> I thought that this restriction was alleviated years ago, so I'm a bit
> surprised to see this come up in 2015. (Or perhaps Gentoo hasn't
> yet opened up some limits??? :-) )
The restriction is alleviated (patched) by some distributions, and
Gentoo isn't among those.
It has been almost 4 years (the most recent Google has found) since the
last time this happened with PostgreSQL's docs.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/BANLkTiktW6SRDygVfJRB4q+7dvWoQCC1Yg@mail.gmail.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2015-05-15 01:39:48 | Re: BackendPidGetProc doesn't return PGPROC for background worker? |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2015-05-15 00:25:53 | Re: Final Patch for GROUPING SETS |