On Wednesday, May 24, 2023, Alexey Kachalin <
kachalin.alexey@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the clarification.
The "bug" report may be closed.
On Wednesday, May 24, 2023, Alexey Kachalin <kachalin.alexey@gmail.com> wrote:
If I exceed the limit I would like to get the error related to an issue, not just my valid SQL returns something unpredictable.
Can I get a proper error for identifying issues and fixing?
Is it expected behaviour that SQL returns corrupt value or error, when a prepared SQL statements name has gone beyond limit?
All info beyond 63 chars is discarded early on in the parsing phase. Giving two different prepared statements the same name, as in the first 63 chars, is an application bug since, as you’ve observed, you are likely to end up with non-deterministic behavior. Unfortunately, PostgreSQL will not help you find this kind of bug. There presently are no plans to change this, even though you and others would consider the lack to be undesirable.
David J.
Just to be clear, the other comment regarding not blowing past an “object already exists” is going to be your way of noticing this - so “will not help” isn’t quite correct. Though the system doesn’t know why the collision happened or what the requested names were.
David J.