Re: Prepared SQL name collision. The name implicitly is truncated by NAMEDATALEN

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023, Alexey Kachalin <kachalin(dot)alexey(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Thank you for the clarification.
>
> The "bug" report may be closed.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:22 PM David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023, Alexey Kachalin <kachalin(dot)alexey(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If I exceed the limit I would like to get the error related to an issue,
>>> not just my valid SQL returns something unpredictable.
>>> Can I get a proper error for identifying issues and fixing?
>>> Is it expected behaviour that SQL returns corrupt value or error, when a
>>> prepared SQL statements name has gone beyond limit?
>>>
>>
>> All info beyond 63 chars is discarded early on in the parsing phase.
>> Giving two different prepared statements the same name, as in the first 63
>> chars, is an application bug since, as you’ve observed, you are likely to
>> end up with non-deterministic behavior. Unfortunately, PostgreSQL will not
>> help you find this kind of bug. There presently are no plans to change
>> this, even though you and others would consider the lack to be undesirable.
>>
>> David J.
>>
>>
Just to be clear, the other comment regarding not blowing past an “object
already exists” is going to be your way of noticing this - so “will not
help” isn’t quite correct. Though the system doesn’t know why the
collision happened or what the requested names were.

David J.