Re: dblink versus long connection strings

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: dblink versus long connection strings
Date: 2010-11-22 17:12:41
Message-ID: 4CEAA489.9070702@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/22/2010 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 11/22/2010 11:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Perhaps a reasonable compromise is to issue the truncation warnings when
>>> an overlength name is being *entered* into the connection table, but not
>>> for simple lookups.
>> Can't we distinguish a name from a conninfo string by the presence of an
>> = sign?
> No, because = isn't disallowed in names ...

Ok, true, but it still might not be a bad heuristic to use for issuing a
warning on lookup.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-22 17:17:26 Re: format() with embedded to_char() formatter
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-22 17:08:24 Re: dblink versus long connection strings