| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
|---|
| From: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Postgres do not allow to create many tables with more than 63-symbols prefix |
| Date: | 2022-06-03 19:02:56 |
| Message-ID: | [email protected] |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
According to subj you can try to create many tables (induced by the case
of partitioned table) with long prefix - see 6727v.sql for reproduction.
But now it's impossible because of logic of the makeUniqueTypeName()
routine.
You get the error:
ERROR: could not form array type name for type ...
It is very corner case, of course. But solution is easy and short. So,
why not to fix? - See the patch in attachment.
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 6727v.sql | application/sql | 397 bytes |
| 0001-Allow-postgresql-to-generate-more-relations-with-the.patch | text/plain | 3.6 KB |
| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres do not allow to create many tables with more than 63-symbols prefix |
| Date: | 2022-06-23 02:03:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoC5wt6iCFK5uMRTTYT3be09RWi9a3YduKXUqsFbTKby_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 4:03 AM Andrey Lepikhov
<a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> According to subj you can try to create many tables (induced by the case
> of partitioned table) with long prefix - see 6727v.sql for reproduction.
> But now it's impossible because of logic of the makeUniqueTypeName()
> routine.
> You get the error:
> ERROR: could not form array type name for type ...
>
> It is very corner case, of course. But solution is easy and short. So,
> why not to fix? - See the patch in attachment.
While this seems to be a good improvement, I think it's not a bug.
Probably we cannot backpatch it as it will end up having type names
defined by different naming rules. I'd suggest discussing it on
-hackers.
Regarding the patch, I think we can merge makeUniqueTypeName() to
makeArrayTypeName() as there is no caller of makeUniqueTypeName() who
pass tryOriginal = true. Also looking at other ChooseXXXName()
functions, we don't care about integer overflow. Is it better to make
it consistent with them?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/