From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
        Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, adam@labkey.com,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer
 than 63 characters now fails
In-reply-to: <Zz9IHPBf-z8MsLdw@momjian.us>
References: <75265.1732076593@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zz4BxVqAZnWHFXFB@nathan>
 <154104.1732118090@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zz4IJ041indld9jv@nathan>
 <158506.1732120196@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zz4TcYSNWW1_Vj--@nathan>
 <Zz5kfP7fIuoY8I45@nathan>
 <Zz7g2s0GSBelWmpg@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <Zz9B3KQGXFCGVPXy@momjian.us>
 <Zz9FRrwJRlyGBFPN@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <Zz9IHPBf-z8MsLdw@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:47:56 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <477091.1732234269.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:11:09 -0500
Message-ID: <477092.1732234269@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/477092.1732234269%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> But the logic doesn't make sense.  Why would two bytes be any different
> than one?  I assumed you would just remove all trailing high-bit bytes
> and stop and the first non-high-bit byte. 

To take the most obvious counterexample: what if the name contains
*only* high-bit-set bytes?  In any case, this logic must achieve
the same effect as the original encoding-aware truncation, which
will not have removed more than it absolutely had to.

			regards, tom lane