| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2022-06-15 17:08:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZkNu4rQAstdO0zrbxY+QBvZCse+bezCSWKhdz0diboag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 don't know how much we gain by fixing one place and not all the
others, but maybe it would set a trend.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-06-15 17:27:06 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-06-15 17:00:51 | Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler? |