On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:27, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This bug report: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-11/msg00139.php > shows that this patch was ill-considered: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-06/msg00013.php > and this later attempt didn't fix it, because it still misbehaves in > HEAD: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-06/msg00070.php > not to mention that that second patch didn't even touch pre-8.4 > branches. > > I'm inclined to think that we should just change all the > truncate_identifier calls to warn=false, and forget about providing > identifier-truncated warnings here. It's too difficult to tell whether > a string is really meant as an identifier.
It is not a truncated identifier, but I think the truncation is still worth warning because we cannot distinguish two connections that differ only >63 bytes. Do we need another logic to name non-named connections? For example, md5 hash of the connection string. -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
