Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> + /* We append database name if db_user_namespace true. */
> + #define SM_DATABASE_USER (SM_DATABASE+SM_USER)
Is this calculation correct? I'd think you'd need at least one more
character to allow for the "@". And I'm not sure about whether trailing
nulls are or need to be counted. There seem to be some places in your
patch where things are dimensioned SM_DATABASE_USER and some where it's
SM_DATABASE_USER+1; why the inconsistency, and which is right?
Other than getting the array sizes right, it does look like a nice
patch; very small, which is what I'd hoped for. The notion of having to
say "postgres@" still seems kinda ugly, but given the simplicity of the
patch I'm willing to live with that.
regards, tom lane