| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"? |
| Date: | 2022-06-17 07:50:38 |
| Message-ID: | 98ed7b39-c20e-127a-aacc-75730dd40d55@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.06.22 19:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 2:51 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> We have this problem of long file names being silently truncated all
>> over the source code. Instead of equipping each one of them with a
>> length check, why don't we get rid of the fixed-size buffers and
>> allocate dynamically, as in the attached patch.
>
> I've always wondered why we rely on MAXPGPATH instead of dynamic
> allocation. It seems pretty lame.
I think it came in before we had extensible string buffers APIs.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-06-17 08:57:45 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-06-17 07:17:10 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |