Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?

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.