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

On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 06:39:48PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Despite being a really simple idea for adding one new switch that
> really only "stops" things rather than actually doing anything new, it
> finishes up interacting with locking, logging, checkpointing, control
> file, redo, grammar, pg_upgrade (and I see now that pg_dumpall might
> need a similar approach), and I didn't even look at the startup stuff
> you guys were working on that can hopefully benefit from having
> GetSharedCatalogEncoding(). Hopefully the patch has the right sort of
> ideas in some of those places, but obviously it's a rapid prototype so
> might be way off on some of the details. It fails on Windows CI in a
> very minor way that I see how to fix... later. It's enough to try out
> the user experience anyway. Feedback, flames and ideas welcome.

I am concerned we are going to get a lot of complaints about this
restricted change because most people are happily using whatever
encoding they want, and as long as they don't hit the 64-byte limit,
they are fine. Are people going to be happy with this restriction just
to keep 64+-byte identifiers safe?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means
"Am I going to die soon?"