Hi,
On 6/21/23 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes:
At Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:43:50 +0200, "Drouvot, Bertrand"
<bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote in
Trying to connect with the 64 bytes name:
$ psql -d ääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää
psql: error: connection to server on socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.55448"
failed: FATAL: database "äääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää" does not
exist
IMHO, I'm not sure we should allow connections without the exact name
being provided. In that sense, I think we might want to consider
outright rejecting the estblishment of a connection when the given
database name doesn't fit the startup packet, since the database with
the exact given name cannot be found.
I think I agree. I don't like the proposed patch at all, because it's
making completely unsupportable assumptions about what encoding the
names are given in. Simply failing to match when a name is overlength
sounds safer.
Yeah, that's another and "cleaner" option.
I'll propose a patch to make it failing even for the non multibyte case then (
so that multibyte and non multibyte behaves the same aka failing in case of
overlength
name is detected).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
