On 4/11/17 13:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
