[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4805?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13864946#comment-13864946
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-4805:
----------------------------------------
FWIW, all my database names have always been 10-20 characters long, max;
I've never felt the need to have a database name which is dozens or hundreds
of characters long.
I'm not saying that raising the limit is a bad thing, but I also think that the
limit doesn't need to be absurdly large, a few hundred characters seems like
it would be plenty to me.
> Increase the length of the RDBNAM field in the DRDA implementation
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4805
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4805
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Network Client, Network Server
> Affects Versions: 10.7.1.1
> Reporter: Tiago R. Espinha
> Assignee: Mamta A. Satoor
> Labels: derby_triage10_9
> Attachments: DERBY_4805_diff_patch1.txt
>
>
> Currently, whenever the client driver is used, there is a limit of 255 bytes
> for the database name. This is defined by the DRDA spec and there has been a
> discussion on the list [1]/[2] as to whether this limit should be raised due
> to the introduction of the new ACR that allows for UTF-8 characters.
> UTF-8 characters can take up to four bytes and this reduces the limit in
> characters dramatically.
> This should be an easy change as there is a codepoint that defines this limit.
> [1] did not work but [2] did
> [1] - http://old.nabble.com/Database-name-length-tt29691419.html
> [2]http://apache-database.10148.n7.nabble.com/Database-name-length-td33182.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
