Could we just make the limitation to be 64 (or 128) _characters_ not _bytes_ ?
Memory sizes and processor speeds have grown by order(s) of magnitude
since the 64 byte limit was decided and supporting non-ASCII charsets
properly seems like a prudent thing to do.
Also - have we checked that at least the truncation does not cut utf-8
characters in half ?
-----
Hannu Krosing
Google Cloud - We have a long list of planned contributions and we are hiring.
Contact me if interested.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:33 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:27 PM John Naylor
> <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:15 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the problem isn't really the additional disk space it
> > > would require. The problem is the additional performance hit and
> > > memory overhead, as the catalog names are part of the internal
> > > syscache.
> >
> > Some actual numbers on recent hardware would show what kind of tradeoff is involved. No one has done that for a
longtime that I recall.
>
> Agreed, but I don't have access to such hardware. However this won't
> influence the memory overhead part, and there is already frequent
> problems with that, especially since declarative partitioning, so I
> don't see how we could afford that without some kind of cache TTL or
> similar. AFAIR the last discussion about it a few years ago didn't
> lead anywhere :(
>
>
