Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Zz92cka2VlBDsat3@momjian.us 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 |
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:09:14AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:44:44AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 09:14:23AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > >> Tom provided a concise explanation upthread [0]. My understanding is the > >> same as Bertrand's, i.e., this is an easy way to rule out a bunch of cases > >> where we know that we couldn't possibly have truncated in the middle of a > >> multi-byte character. This allows us to avoid doing multiple pg_database > >> lookups. > > > > Where does Tom mention anything about checking two bytes? > > Here [0]. And he further elaborated on this idea here [1]. > > > He is > > basically saying remove all trailing high-bit characters until you get a > > match, because once you get a match, you are have found the point of > > valid truncation for the encoding. > > Yes, we still need to do that if it's possible the truncation wiped out > part of a multi-byte character. But it's not possible that we truncated > part of a multi-byte character if the NAMEDATALEN-1'th or NAMEDATALEN-2'th > byte is ASCII, in which case we can avoid doing extra lookups. Why would you check for two characters at the end rather than just a normal check in the main loop? > > needs to be fixed, at a minimum, specifically, "So if IS_HIGHBIT_SET is > > true for both NAMEDATALEN-1 and NAMEDATALEN-2, we know we're in the > > middle of a multibyte character." > > Agreed, the second-to-last sentence should be adjusted to something like > "we might be in the middle of a multibyte character." We don't know for > sure. > > >> * Try to do multibyte-aware truncation (the patch at hand). > > > > Yes, I am fine with that, but we need to do more than the patch does to > > accomplish this, unless I am totally confused. > > What more do you think is required? I think the IS_HIGHBIT_SET needs to be integrated into the 'for' loop more clearly; the 'if' check plus the comment above it is just confusing. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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?"
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: