Hi,
On 6/21/23 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
>> At Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:43:50 +0200, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> Trying to connect with the 64 bytes name:
>>> $ psql -d ääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää
>>> psql: error: connection to server on socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.55448"
>>> failed: FATAL: database "äääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää" does not
>>> exist
>
>> IMHO, I'm not sure we should allow connections without the exact name
>> being provided. In that sense, I think we might want to consider
>> outright rejecting the estblishment of a connection when the given
>> database name doesn't fit the startup packet, since the database with
>> the exact given name cannot be found.
>
> I think I agree. I don't like the proposed patch at all, because it's
> making completely unsupportable assumptions about what encoding the
> names are given in. Simply failing to match when a name is overlength
> sounds safer.
>
Yeah, that's another and "cleaner" option.
I'll propose a patch to make it failing even for the non multibyte case then (
so that multibyte and non multibyte behaves the same aka failing in case of overlength
name is detected).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
