Re: Open 7.3 items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items
Date: 2002-08-15 16:56:49
Message-ID: 24513.1029430609@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> + /* We append database name if db_user_namespace true. */
> + #define SM_DATABASE_USER (SM_DATABASE+SM_USER)

Is this calculation correct? I'd think you'd need at least one more
character to allow for the "@". And I'm not sure about whether trailing
nulls are or need to be counted. There seem to be some places in your
patch where things are dimensioned SM_DATABASE_USER and some where it's
SM_DATABASE_USER+1; why the inconsistency, and which is right?

Other than getting the array sizes right, it does look like a nice
patch; very small, which is what I'd hoped for. The notion of having to
say "postgres@" still seems kinda ugly, but given the simplicity of the
patch I'm willing to live with that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vince Vielhaber 2002-08-15 17:00:37 Re: Open 7.3 items
Previous Message Vince Vielhaber 2002-08-15 16:53:39 failure notice (fwd)