Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Date
Msg-id 75265.1732076593@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
List pgsql-bugs
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:09:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, we could bypass the multiple lookups unless both the
>> NAMEDATALEN-1'th and NAMEDATALEN-2'th bytes are non-ASCII, which
>> should be rare enough to make it not much of a performance issue.

> I'm admittedly not an expert in the multi-byte code, but since there are
> encodings like LATIN1 that use a byte per character, don't we need to do
> multiple lookups any time the NAMEDATALEN-1'th byte is non-ASCII?

I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing something.  An important
property of backend-legal encodings is that all bytes of a multibyte
character have their high bits set.  Thus if the NAMEDATALEN-2'th
byte does not have that, it is not part of a multibyte character.
That's also the reason we can stop if we reach a high-bit-clear
byte while backing up to earlier bytes.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18635: " $libdir/adminpack could not be loaded" error with pg_upgrade to PostgreSQL17
Next
From: "Aya Iwata (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: 'WARNING: you don't own a lock of type ExclusiveLock' is printed during the GRANT command on PostgreSQL16.5