On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:38:29PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> That's a good suggestion. But, it's unlikely that a caller would pass
> something longer than MAXPGPATH and we indeed use that value a lot in
> the code. IMHO, it looks okay to me to have that assumption here as
> well.
Well, a more serious problem would be to allocate something smaller
than MAXPGPATH. This reminds me a bit of 09ec55b9 where we did not
correctly design from the start the base64 encode and decode routines
for SCRAM, so I'd rather design this one correctly from the start as
per the attached. Alexey, Alexander, what do you think?
--
Michael
