> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
>> Is there a design pattern that would ask us to enforce that length
>> limit? If so, I'd be happy to do so; if not, it doesn't much matter...
>
> Well, the issue is that the backend is just full of code like
>
> char tmppath[MAXPGPATH];
>
> snprintf(tmppath, MAXPGPATH, "%s/xlogtemp.%d",
> XLogDir, (int) getpid());
>
> I suppose we could run around and try to replace every single such
> occurrence with dynamically-sized buffers, but it seems hardly worth the
> trouble --- and if you want a positive argument, I'd prefer not to
> introduce another potential source of elogs (namely out-of-memory)
> into code segments that run as critical sections, as some of the xlog
> manipulation code does. Any elog there becomes a database panic. Is
> it worth taking such a risk to eliminate a limit that *no one* has ever
> complained about?
If that one person did exist, would it not be possible for them to just
increase the value of MAXPGPATH and recompile?
