From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: adam@labkey.com
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:00:53 -0500
Message-ID: <Z048JXV9f8GczAUa@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKG+uJGt2tks0jyS=Gkjd0Uig-9cORVm-_igp50m7QwKrWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Z0DjJbJV4ZWkLuQd@nathan>
<665338.1732306066@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<Z0Dmw1ryKH8bEkyo@nathan>
<Z0c9XVU6aTd8neRr@nathan>
<1865227.1732723416@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+hUKGKKNAc599Vp7kFAnLE1=V=ceYujz_YQoSNrvNFGaJ6i7w@mail.gmail.com>
<2094158.1732812306@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+hUKGKDC7tKMZ1v0JGH5D23F-=ADf-3UfcriVepqoi7Q_SKgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<Z0mUMnVakLOizwID@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
<CA+hUKG+uJGt2tks0jyS=Gkjd0Uig-9cORVm-_igp50m7QwKrWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 06:39:48PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Despite being a really simple idea for adding one new switch that
> really only "stops" things rather than actually doing anything new, it
> finishes up interacting with locking, logging, checkpointing, control
> file, redo, grammar, pg_upgrade (and I see now that pg_dumpall might
> need a similar approach), and I didn't even look at the startup stuff
> you guys were working on that can hopefully benefit from having
> GetSharedCatalogEncoding(). Hopefully the patch has the right sort of
> ideas in some of those places, but obviously it's a rapid prototype so
> might be way off on some of the details. It fails on Windows CI in a
> very minor way that I see how to fix... later. It's enough to try out
> the user experience anyway. Feedback, flames and ideas welcome.
I am concerned we are going to get a lot of complaints about this
restricted change because most people are happily using whatever
encoding they want, and as long as they don't hit the 64-byte limit,
they are fine. Are people going to be happy with this restriction just
to keep 64+-byte identifiers safe?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means
"Am I going to die soon?"
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-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: bruce@momjian.us, thomas.munro@gmail.com, bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, 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: <Z048JXV9f8GczAUa@momjian.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