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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers