On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:23:59AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:19:13PM +0100, David Fetter wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:12:52AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think we should be using a macro to define the maximum length, rather > > > than have 100 used in various places. > > > > It's not just 100 in some places. It's different in different places, > > which goes to your point. > > > > How about using a system that doesn't meaningfully impose a maximum > > length? The shell variable is a const char *, so why not just > > re(p)alloc as needed? > > Uh, how do you know how big to make the buffer that receives the read?
You can start at any size, possibly even 100, and then increase the size in a loop along the lines of (untested) my_size = 100; my_buf = char[my_size]; curr_size = 0; while (c = getchar() != '\0') { my_buf[curr_size++] = c; if (curr_size == my_size) /* If we want an absolute maximum, this'd be the place to test for it. */ { my_size *= 2; repalloc(my_buf, my_size); } } Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate