On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
MAXPGPATH is used quite a lot in the binaries of src/bin/, just using that seems fine to me.. My 2c. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
