Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> "Ansley, Michael" <Michael.Ansley@intec.co.za> writes:
> >> So I'm leaning towards leaving the pg_dump code as-is and fixing the
> >> limitation in pqexpbuffer.
> 
> > Yes, this is the correct solution.  What's the best way? To check the
> > incoming string lengths for anything aproaching or greater than 1kB and
> > slice it up from there?
> 
> I don't think we can do that short of writing a complete snprintf
> emulation --- so we might as well just use snprintf.
> 
>                         regards, tom lane

Can I go ahead and use today's snapshot to write up the diffs for
pg_dump for dumping COMMENT ON statements?

Mike Mascari