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

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 don't know how much we gain by fixing one place and not all the
others, but maybe it would set a trend.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com