Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sChqK-007XIq-E7 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2024 15:37:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sChqI-004IXQ-3d for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2024 15:37:26 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sChqH-004IXI-RP for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2024 15:37:25 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sChqA-001X1v-FP for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2024 15:37:24 +0000 Received: from pro.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 44UFbDnd1784914; Thu, 30 May 2024 11:37:14 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Daniel Gustafsson cc: David Rowley , michael.banck@netapp.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18484: "Cannot enlarge string buffer" during parallel execution of prepared statement/partitioning In-reply-to: <9DF26EE9-811F-465B-9999-9B8D47AB6139@yesql.se> References: <18484-3e357ade5fe50e61@postgresql.org> <7AED6906-7A2E-47CB-93D4-C193D406417B@yesql.se> <9DF26EE9-811F-465B-9999-9B8D47AB6139@yesql.se> Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson message dated "Thu, 30 May 2024 12:27:12 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3685.1717083433.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 08:37:13 -0700 Message-ID: <3686.1717083433@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Daniel Gustafsson writes: >> On 30 May 2024, at 11:55, David Rowley wrote: >> Not on purpose. I do think (%zu bytes) would be better than (%zu). I >> only thought about that while typing "MB" in the 2nd email. > +1 +1 for "(%zu bytes)", and also for not rounding off. This is a case where that won't make it more intelligible. regards, tom lane