> On Nov 10, 2025, at 18:27, Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael, Chao,
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:32 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:30:31AM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
>>> Is really confused. The error message says “maximum of 64”, but the
>>> test right uses a name of length 64. I know that the tricky is the
>>> ‘\0’ terminator, but should SQL writer have to keep mind about the
>>> ‘\0’ terminator? Should they just consider maximum length as 63?
>>
>> Right. We could add a "- 1" to the error message printed.
>
> Thanks for the patch. I also agree with Chao's suggestion that the
> error message better reflects the actual character limits. I
> implemented a patch for that and updated the test patch as well.
> Please check.
>
> Best,
> Xuneng
> <v2-0001-injection_points-Report-actual-character-limits-i.patch><v2-0002-injection_points-Add-tests-for-name-limits.patch>
The patch looks good to me.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
