| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"? |
| Date: | 2022-06-15 23:48:57 |
| Message-ID: | Yqpv6ZIGErxl1+Ke@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 02:02:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, that was what was bugging me about this proposal. Removing
> one function's dependency on MAXPGPATH isn't much of a step forward.
This comes down to out-of-memory vs path length at the end. Changing
only the paths of make_outputdirs() without touching all the paths in
check.c and the one in function.c does not sound good to me, as this
increases the risk of failing pg_upgrade in the middle, and that's
what we should avoid, as said upthread.
> I note also that the patch leaks quite a lot of memory (a kilobyte or
> so per pathname, IIRC). That's probably negligible in this particular
> context, but anyplace that was called more than once per program run
> would need to be more tidy.
Surely.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-15 23:58:03 | Re: Small TAP improvements |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-06-15 21:53:02 | Re: better page-level checksums |