On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Perhaps the "logpath" buffer that the filename is constructed in
>>> needs to be made bigger. 64 bytes was obviously enough with the
>>> old pattern, but it's not with the new.
>
>> Oops, yes, that seems like a good idea. How about 64 -> MAXPGPATH?
>
> If we want to stick with the fixed-size-buffer-on-stack approach,
> that would be the thing to use. psprintf is another possibility,
> though that would add a malloc/free cycle.
I don't think the performance cost of a malloc/free cycle would be
noticeable, but I don't see much point in it, either. It's likely
that, if you hadn't notice this by inspection, we could have gone a
few years before anyone ran afoul of the 64-character limit. Now,
MAXPGPATH is 1024, and I do not know too many people who have a real
need for pathnames over 1024 characters. I think we may as well just
keep it simple.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company