Re: Addition to: Trouble with initdb when the #define NAMEDATALEN = 51

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "G(dot) Anthony Reina" <reina(at)nsi(dot)edu>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Addition to: Trouble with initdb when the #define NAMEDATALEN = 51
Date: 2001-05-12 13:41:16
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20010512214116.011f3470@192.228.128.13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 12:35 AM 5/12/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>BTW, 51 is a gratuitously wasteful setting --- given alignment
>considerations, any value that's not a multiple of 4 is pointless.
>(It should work ... but it's pointless.)

Would n^2-1 or n*8 -1 be better than n^2 or n*8?

For postgresql it's in the source somewhere, but assuming we can't look,
which would be a better bet?

Cheerio,
Link.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-05-12 14:02:42 Re: Re: Addition to: Trouble with initdb when the #define NAMEDATALEN = 51
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2001-05-12 08:51:29 Re: bug in pgcrypto 0.3