On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 09:43:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes: >> 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.
+1. Even if these assumptions were supportable, IMHO it's probably not worth the added complexity to keep the truncation consistent with CREATE ROLE/DATABASE. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
