Re: Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd)
Date
Msg-id 528.997911671@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd)  ("Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>)
Responses Re: Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd)  ("Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>)
List pgsql-general
"Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> Would anyone like to comment on the advisability or otherwise of
> my complying with this request?

I think it's a lousy idea.  (a) It's not at all clear to me that it's
safe to compile clients with a different NAMEDATALEN from the server.
Even if it happens to be okay with today's sources, the odds of such a
lashup breaking in future are high.  (b) Which NAMEDATALEN are you going
to put in your shipped postgres_ext.h?  Either answer is wrong, since
people might try to use it to compile either frontend or backend code.
(c) I have a very low tolerance for the notion that it's okay for the
Debian distribution to differ however it pleases from what everyone else
ships. That creates support problems for *us*, and so we have a right to
object.

We do have a TODO item to consider raising the standard NAMEDATALEN
value.  So far no one's done any legwork to try to measure space/speed
penalties of larger lengths.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jeremy Hansen
Date:
Subject: Re: do I have a reserved word here or something???
Next
From: "Oliver Elphick"
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd)