| From: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>, "'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 20:30:21 |
| Message-ID: | 38822A5D.670DBA2F@mascari.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "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
Can I go ahead and use today's snapshot to write up the diffs for
pg_dump for dumping COMMENT ON statements?
Mike Mascari
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-16 20:47:11 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-16 20:16:52 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape |