On 4/11/17 13:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >>> d) Replace most of the problematic code with psprintf() and dynamically >>> sized buffers. >> >> +1 for (c) as you have it. Later we might think about selectively >> doing (d), but it seems like more work for probably not much benefit. > > Yeah -- also it's possible some of these code paths must not attempt to > palloc() for robustness reasons. I would go for c) only for now, and > only try d) for very specific cases where there are no such concerns.
Attached is a more refined patch that I propose for PG10 now. Compared to the previous rushed version, this one uses some more precise arithmetic to size some of the buffers. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers