Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?
Date
Msg-id 2fb5396d-8901-f88d-0cd5-0279e73a62b2@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?
List pgsql-hackers
On 14.06.22 03:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 09:52:52AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> At Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:48:26 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> Yeah, I feel so and it is what I wondered about recently when I saw
>>> some complete error messages.  Is that because of the length of the
>>> subject?
>>
>> And I found that it is alrady done. Thanks!
> 
> I have noticed this thread and 4e54d23 as a result this morning.  If
> you want to spread this style more, wouldn't it be better to do that
> in all the places of pg_upgrade where we store paths to files?  I can
> see six code paths with log_opts.basedir that could do the same, as of
> the attached.  The hardcoded file names have various lengths, and some
> of them are quite long making the generated paths more exposed to
> being cut in the middle.

We have this problem of long file names being silently truncated all 
over the source code.  Instead of equipping each one of them with a 
length check, why don't we get rid of the fixed-size buffers and 
allocate dynamically, as in the attached patch.
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Support logical replication of DDLs
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove trailing newlines from pg_upgrade's messages