From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 13:05:38 -0500
Message-ID: <Zz92cka2VlBDsat3@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zz9pOi3pGF-DnJTp@nathan>
References: <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>
<Zz9OTyWAvATeeHev@nathan>
<Zz9jfOkVmlYcYHSy@momjian.us>
<Zz9pOi3pGF-DnJTp@nathan>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:09:14AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:44:44AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 09:14:23AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> Tom provided a concise explanation upthread [0]. My understanding is the
> >> same as Bertrand's, i.e., this is an easy way to rule out a bunch of cases
> >> where we know that we couldn't possibly have truncated in the middle of a
> >> multi-byte character. This allows us to avoid doing multiple pg_database
> >> lookups.
> >
> > Where does Tom mention anything about checking two bytes?
>
> Here [0]. And he further elaborated on this idea here [1].
>
> > He is
> > basically saying remove all trailing high-bit characters until you get a
> > match, because once you get a match, you are have found the point of
> > valid truncation for the encoding.
>
> Yes, we still need to do that if it's possible the truncation wiped out
> part of a multi-byte character. But it's not possible that we truncated
> part of a multi-byte character if the NAMEDATALEN-1'th or NAMEDATALEN-2'th
> byte is ASCII, in which case we can avoid doing extra lookups.
Why would you check for two characters at the end rather than just a
normal check in the main loop?
> > needs to be fixed, at a minimum, specifically, "So if IS_HIGHBIT_SET is
> > true for both NAMEDATALEN-1 and NAMEDATALEN-2, we know we're in the
> > middle of a multibyte character."
>
> Agreed, the second-to-last sentence should be adjusted to something like
> "we might be in the middle of a multibyte character." We don't know for
> sure.
>
> >> * Try to do multibyte-aware truncation (the patch at hand).
> >
> > Yes, I am fine with that, but we need to do more than the patch does to
> > accomplish this, unless I am totally confused.
>
> What more do you think is required?
I think the IS_HIGHBIT_SET needs to be integrated into the 'for' loop
more clearly; the 'if' check plus the comment above it is just
confusing.
--
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, nathandbossart@gmail.com, bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, 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: <Zz92cka2VlBDsat3@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