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

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, adam(at)labkey(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Date: 2024-11-27 16:50:18
Message-ID: Z0dNyskuXOCM-dOz@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:36:07PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> I'd vote for "leave it alone" or wait to see if we get more reports before
> deciding.

Did your initial report originate from users or from just exploring the
code? If it's the latter, then AFAICT this thread is really the only
feedback from the field we have to go on, and IMHO it'd be better to
proceed with reverting. But if you were fielding complaints from users,
then perhaps there is more room for discussion.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-11-27 17:43:38 Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-11-27 16:36:07 Re: BUG #18711: Attempting a connection with a database name longer than 63 characters now fails