| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add tests for object size limits of injection points |
| Date: | 2025-11-10 02:30:31 |
| Message-ID: | 3A43F33C-B507-4BE9-B7BD-6FBDF0D58B92@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Nov 10, 2025, at 09:11, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While looking at a recent patch for injection points that has resulted
> in 16a2f706951e, I have been reminded that the point name, library
> name and function name have hardcoded limits, and it is now possible
> to have them tested by SQL.
>
> Attached is a patch to do so. Thoughts?
> --
> Michael
> <0001-injection_points-Add-tests-for-name-limits.patch>
Maybe not a problem of this patch, but
```
+SELECT injection_points_attach(repeat('a', 64), 'injection_notice',
+ 'TestInjectionNoticeFunc', NULL);
+ERROR: injection point name aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa too long (maximum of 64)
```
Is really confused. The error message says “maximum of 64”, but the test right uses a name of length 64. I know that the tricky is the ‘\0’ terminator, but should SQL writer have to keep mind about the ‘\0’ terminator? Should they just consider maximum length as 63?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2025-11-10 02:30:47 | Re: add function argument name to substring and substr |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-11-10 02:06:35 | Re: Suggestion to add --continue-client-on-abort option to pgbench |