Could we just make the limitation to be 64 (or 128) _characters_ not _bytes_ ?
Memory sizes and processor speeds have grown by order(s) of magnitude since the 64 byte limit was decided and supporting non-ASCII charsets properly seems like a prudent thing to do. Also - have we checked that at least the truncation does not cut utf-8 characters in half ? ----- Hannu Krosing Google Cloud - We have a long list of planned contributions and we are hiring. Contact me if interested. On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:33 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:27 PM John Naylor > <john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:15 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, the problem isn't really the additional disk space it > > > would require. The problem is the additional performance hit and > > > memory overhead, as the catalog names are part of the internal > > > syscache. > > > > Some actual numbers on recent hardware would show what kind of tradeoff is > > involved. No one has done that for a long time that I recall. > > Agreed, but I don't have access to such hardware. However this won't > influence the memory overhead part, and there is already frequent > problems with that, especially since declarative partitioning, so I > don't see how we could afford that without some kind of cache TTL or > similar. AFAIR the last discussion about it a few years ago didn't > lead anywhere :( > >