Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:00:53 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	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
Message-ID: <Z048JXV9f8GczAUa@momjian.us>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKG+uJGt2tks0jyS=Gkjd0Uig-9cORVm-_igp50m7QwKrWw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z048JXV9f8GczAUa%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

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?"