Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Z0daSnNI8FrrSvhW@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:50:18AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:36:07PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > I'd vote for "leave it alone" or wait to see if we get more reports before > > deciding. > > Did your initial report originate from users or from just exploring the > code? If it's the latter, then AFAICT this thread is really the only > feedback from the field we have to go on, and IMHO it'd be better to > proceed with reverting. I meant to say get more reports regarding the 17 behavior to decide between reverting or "leave it alone". Regarding the question, the report that lead to the initial discussion was coming from a real case from an internal team. 562bee0fc1 did not fix it though but at least provides a consistent behavior between ASCII and non-ASCII. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: