On 7/2/20 6:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>> On 7/2/20 5:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I still can't get excited about contorting the code to remove that
>>> issue.
>
>> It doesn't seem much worse than the oom test that was there before -- see attached.
>
> Personally I would not bother, but it's your patch.
Thanks, committed that way, ...
>> Are we in agreement that whatever gets pushed should be backpatched through pg11
>> (see start of thread)?
>
> OK by me.
... and backpatched to v11.
I changed the new error message to "file length too large" instead of "requested
length too large" since that seems more descriptive of what is actually
happening there. I also changed the corresponding error code to match the one
enlargeStringInfo() would have used because I thought it was more apropos.
Thanks for all the help with this!
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development