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 98ed7b39-c20e-127a-aacc-75730dd40d55@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 15.06.22 19:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 2:51 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I've always wondered why we rely on MAXPGPATH instead of dynamic
> allocation. It seems pretty lame.

I think it came in before we had extensible string buffers APIs.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply