Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
Date: 2024-09-04 20:46:57
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLAznzOPc34+qYAumJz+P66sc58XkM+68NO=xstoVwQ6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 3:58 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Obviously we could add a version of GetRelationPath() that just prints into a
> caller provided buffer - but that's somewhat awkward API wise.

For the record, that's exactly what I did in the patch I proposed to
fix our long standing RelationTruncate() data-eating bug:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKG%2B5nfWcpnZ%3DZ%3DUpGvY1tTF%3D4QU_0U_07EFaKmH7Nr%2BNLQ%40mail.gmail.com#aa061db119ee7a4b5390af56e24f475d

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2024-09-04 21:04:32 PostgreSQL 17 release announcement draft
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-09-04 20:26:45 Re: psql: fix variable existence tab completion