Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, adam(at)labkey(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Date: 2024-11-20 15:10:51
Message-ID: 149256.1732115451@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Could we rely on pg_encoding_max_length() instead of MAX_MULTIBYTE_CHAR_LEN? That
> would then work for short characters too IIUC.

No. We don't know which encoding it is. Even if you wanted to say
"use the database encoding", we haven't identified the database yet.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-11-20 15:20:45 Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Previous Message Etienne LAFARGE 2024-11-20 13:30:09 Re: Today's Postgres Releases break login roles