Re: [HACKERS] Path-length follies

> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Does anyone have a better idea? Is it worth trying to extract a
> >> system limit on pathlength during configure, rather than leaving
> >> MAXPGPATH as a manual configuration item --- and if so, exactly how
> >> should configure go about it?
>
> > I don't like the 128 or 256 numbers, but isn't there a predefined place
> > for this value in standard system headers?
>
> There are too many of 'em, actually --- I had never realized this
> before, but there are three or four *different* "standard" symbols that
> all purport to be max pathlength. On my box they actually have three
> different values, which doesn't leave a warm feeling in the stomach.

Couldn't we pick one of the standard ones for use in setting a value for
our own define, or at least test one of the standard ones against ours
to see that it is either equal or greater than the 1024 we chose?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026