Re: Handle MAXSTRLEN consistently

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Handle MAXSTRLEN consistently
Date: 2026-08-12 19:36:18
Message-ID: CAN4CZFPGif0c8cV6PfbqwobnKKpR-W4Xq7qvHrwP4UoEpzSWqA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 12 Aug 2026, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah. I noticed this inconsistency while preparing 23d9ad771,
> but felt that fixing it was out of scope for a security patch.
> There's a similar problem with inconsistent enforcement of
> MAXSTRPOS. Attached is what I had staged to propose post-release.

Yeah, I missed that MAXSTRPOS case but it is also valid, otherwise the
changes look identical.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2026-08-12 20:10:11 Re: pgbench --continue-on-error: clarify TPS and failure reporting
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2026-08-12 19:18:20 Re: hashjoins vs. Bloom filters (yet again)