On 7/2/20 6:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: >> On 7/2/20 5:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I still can't get excited about contorting the code to remove that >>> issue. > >> It doesn't seem much worse than the oom test that was there before -- see >> attached. > > Personally I would not bother, but it's your patch.
Thanks, committed that way, ... >> Are we in agreement that whatever gets pushed should be backpatched through >> pg11 >> (see start of thread)? > > OK by me. ... and backpatched to v11. I changed the new error message to "file length too large" instead of "requested length too large" since that seems more descriptive of what is actually happening there. I also changed the corresponding error code to match the one enlargeStringInfo() would have used because I thought it was more apropos. Thanks for all the help with this! Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
