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

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Date
Msg-id Zz4H/gOhZsctcJiF@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 10:39:35AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 03:20:45PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> >> I had in mind to "fully scan" pg_database in GetDatabaseTuple(), get the datname
> >> and encoding from FormData_pg_database and start from there the comparison 
> >> with the dbname passed as an argument to GetDatabaseTuple(). Thoughts?
> 
> > I was wondering if we could use the database encoding to disambiguate if we
> > found multiple matches, but IIUC the identifier will be truncated using the
> > encoding of the database from which it was created.
> 
> Yeah, you can't really assume that a database's name is stored using
> the encoding of that database.

Yeah, good point, let's stick to the MAX_MULTIBYTE_CHAR_LEN idea then and discard
the usage of pg_encoding_max_length().

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails