Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape
Date: 2000-01-16 20:16:52
Message-ID: 24392.948053812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
>> So I'm leaning towards leaving the pg_dump code as-is and fixing the
>> limitation in pqexpbuffer.

> Yes, this is the correct solution. What's the best way? To check the
> incoming string lengths for anything aproaching or greater than 1kB and
> slice it up from there?

I don't think we can do that short of writing a complete snprintf
emulation --- so we might as well just use snprintf.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Mascari 2000-01-16 20:30:21 Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-16 20:13:03 Re: [HACKERS] flex