Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Perhaps the "logpath" buffer that the filename is constructed in >> needs to be made bigger. 64 bytes was obviously enough with the >> old pattern, but it's not with the new.
> Oops, yes, that seems like a good idea. How about 64 -> MAXPGPATH? If we want to stick with the fixed-size-buffer-on-stack approach, that would be the thing to use. psprintf is another possibility, though that would add a malloc/free cycle. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers