On 18/11/12 17:10, Phil Sorber wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2012 11:06 PM, "Gavin Flower"
> <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz <mailto:GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/11/12 16:49, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: RIPEMD160
> >>
> >>
> >>> NOTICE: identifier
> >>> "this_is_a_really_long_identifier_for_a_prepared_statement_name_ok"
> >>> will be truncated to
> >>> "this_is_a_really_long_identifier_for_a_prepared_statement_name_"
> >>> PREPARE
> >>
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> The ORM could use a shorter identifier, but it supports multiple
> backends
> >>> and this is probably not something in their test suite. In addition it
> >>> actually works!
> >>
> >> For now. If it really works, then by definition it does not /need/ to
> >> be that long, as the truncated version is not blowing things up.
> [...]
> >>> Set a hard limit and ERROR instead of truncating and NOTICE?
> >>> Both? Neither because that would break backward compatibility?
> >>
> >> My vote is WARNING and bump limit to 128 in 9.3. That's the combo most
> >> likely to make dumb applications work better while not breaking
> >> existing smart ones.
> >>
> >>
>
[...]
>
> > Would it be appropriate to make it a WARNING in 9.2.2, then increase
> the length in 9.3?
> >
> > Though I still feel I'd like it to be an ERROR, may be a
> configuration variable in 9.3 to promote it to an ERROR with WARNING
> being the default?
> >
>
> In that case I'd make it ERROR by default and make people override to
> WARNING if it breaks things. Otherwise no one will change.
>
> [...]
>
How about a WARNING in 9.2.2, and ERROR in 9.3 with a configuration
option to downgrade it to WARNING - as well as increasing the max length
to 128 to match the standard in 9.3 (I assume the size increase is to
drastic for 9.2.x!)?
Cheers,
Gavin