On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:08 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.

I don't think the performance cost of a malloc/free cycle would be
noticeable, but I don't see much point in it, either.  It's likely
that, if you hadn't notice this by inspection, we could have gone a
few years before anyone ran afoul of the 64-character limit.  Now,
MAXPGPATH is 1024, and I do not know too many people who have a real
need for pathnames over 1024 characters.  I think we may as well just
keep it simple.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to