From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Day <thekevinday@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document Upper Limit for NAMEDATELEN in pgsql 9.5+
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:49:22 -0500
Message-ID: <21342.1452282562@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABOug-ugKe=SZRma+SW4=L6H_kkqZ6F4dB8H=VCOEzuN4-Mm4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABOug-ugKe=SZRma+SW4=L6H_kkqZ6F4dB8H=VCOEzuN4-Mm4g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-docs>
Kevin Day <thekevinday@gmail.com> writes:
> Postgresql 9.5+ may now fail to compile if NAMEDATELEN has been set
> absurdly large (In my case, 384).
> The file src/backend/utils/adt/levenshtein.c does a static assert on
> "NAMEDATALEN <= MAX_LEVENSHTEIN_STRLEN" with MAX_LEVENSHTEIN_STRLEN
> currently set to 255.
Hmm. I'm not sure whether 384 is "absurdly large", but I do wonder
why the levenshtein code gets to dictate limits on NAMEDATALEN at all.
Or to put it even more bluntly, I'm not sure that there is anything
whatever about MAX_LEVENSHTEIN_STRLEN that is well thought out. Why not
rip it out and put some CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS tests into the loops instead?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, thekevinday@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Document Upper Limit for NAMEDATELEN in pgsql 9.5+
In-Reply-To: <21342.1452282562@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox