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

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: 2024-12-03 08:03:55
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+n6ag0QNDCRP-Yhgr-aFRKvvdKdo_O57y=z5ry8cNNVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 8:38 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe we can try an "hybrid" approach that could simplify the AlterSystemCatalogEncoding()
> by relying on a new struct, say:

Interesting idea, yeah, I'll look into that.

> Do you think it's worth to move the discussion into a dedicated hackers thread?
> (maybe reaching a wider audience?) I think the subject is sensible enough.

Ok yeah, I'll start a new thread on -hackers soon.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Bug reporting form 2024-12-03 09:49:44 BUG #18731: The psql \d command does not exactly match but can be executed
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-12-03 07:38:56 Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails