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
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) |