Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps the "logpath" buffer that the filename is constructed in
>> needs to be made bigger. 64 bytes was obviously enough with the
>> old pattern, but it's not with the new.
> Oops, yes, that seems like a good idea. How about 64 -> MAXPGPATH?
If we want to stick with the fixed-size-buffer-on-stack approach,
that would be the thing to use. psprintf is another possibility,
though that would add a malloc/free cycle.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
