| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Extend the length of BackgroundWorker.bgw_library_name |
| Date: | 2023-06-30 21:39:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20230630213956.GA2941194@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 03:07:18PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> The commit message may require a bit of tweaking by the committer but
> other than that the patch seems to be fine. I'm going to mark it as
> RfC in a bit unless anyone objects.
In v4, I've introduced a new BGW_LIBLEN macro and set it to the default
value of MAXPGPATH (1024). This way, the value can live in bgworker.h like
the other BGW_* macros do. Plus, this should make the assertion that
checks for backward compatibility unnecessary. Since bgw_library_name is
essentially a path, I can see the argument that we should just set
BGW_LIBLEN to MAXPGPATH directly. I'm curious what folks think about this.
I also changed the added sizeofs to use the macro for consistency with the
surrounding code.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v4-0001-extend-bgw_library_name.patch | text/x-diff | 3.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-30 21:40:18 | Re: Should we remove db_user_namespace? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-06-30 21:36:08 | Re: PG 16 draft release notes ready |