Re: Proposal to Compile a 256-Byte Identifier Length Version Alongside the Current 64-Byte Version

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, chuxiongzhong(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal to Compile a 256-Byte Identifier Length Version Alongside the Current 64-Byte Version
Date: 2023-10-10 09:26:12
Message-ID: deed04f45d29d891280a0c95845e2486b36b471f.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, 2023-10-10 at 15:53 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Another solution would be, letting the meaning of NAMEDATALEN to be
> number of *characters*, not the number of bytes. This way, you can use
> up to 64 UTF-8 characters. In my understanding MySQL already does this
> way. I know this requires non trivial code modifications to PostgreSQL
> but would be better than to make binaries with random NAMEDATALEN
> values.

Since "name" is a fixed-length data type, that would require the stored
size to increase to accomodate the extra bytes. Wouldn't that change the
storage format and break pg_upgrade?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-10-10 14:37:07 Re: Proposal to Compile a 256-Byte Identifier Length Version Alongside the Current 64-Byte Version
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2023-10-10 06:53:17 Re: Proposal to Compile a 256-Byte Identifier Length Version Alongside the Current 64-Byte Version