Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane <> 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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to