Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> That being said, I'm growing quite uneasy about the size of this hack, and
> I'm wondering if it would be better to leave it alone (perhaps with an
> update to the release notes) or just revert commit 562bee0 until we have a
> better way of dealing with multibyte characters in identifiers (e.g.,
> tracking their encoding). I suspect there are similar problems in other
> places (e.g., pg_dumpall).

Yeah, there is something to be said for reverting. There is nothing
about our handling of non-ASCII characters in shared system catalogs
that isn't squishy as heck, and yet there have been darn few field
complaints over the many years it's been like that. Maybe trying to
make this truncation issue better in isolation wasn't such a great
plan.

(If we recorded the encoding of names in shared catalogs then this
particular issue would be far easier to solve, but then we have
other problems to address --- particularly, what to do if a name
in the catalog fails to convert to the encoding we are using.)

regards, tom lane