-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Gavin Flower asks:
> Would it be appropriate to make it a WARNING in 9.2.2, then
> increase the length in 9.3?
No: revisions are reserved for bug fixes. This would be more of
a behavior fix and as such would go into a major version.
Gavan Schneider wrote:
> (Wild speculation) There may be a "sweet spot" using even shorter
> identifiers than is the case now, with full disambiguation, which
> might improve overall performance.
I really don't think the length is really a bottleneck, but others
can correct me if it is.
Tom Lane wrote:
> There's some possible value in having a non-default option to throw
> error for overlength names, but TBH I fear that it won't buy all that
> much, because people won't think to turn it on when testing.
>
> Given the historical volume of complaints (to wit, none up to now),
> I can't get very excited about changing the behavior here. I think
> we're more likely to annoy users than accomplish anything useful.
Well, as with many other things, a lack of complaints does not indicate
there is no problem. I've certainly seen this problem in the wild before,
but have not bothered to file an official bug report or anything. Perhaps
my bad, but the problem is out there. How would you feel about switching
from NOTICE to WARNING, Tom? That seems to make a lot more sense as we
are changing the user's input, which warrants more than a notice IMO.
Separately, what are the objections to raising the size limit to 128?
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201211211525
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAlCtOYMACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjmEQCfb6GOEs7jwst1ao70L+j8IW5q
gNYAn110QAhwjuhUSW3/uexvU+StsfZz
=iw6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----