Re: dblink versus long connection strings

On 11/22/2010 11:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Itagaki Takahiro<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>  writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:27, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:
>>> 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. Â 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.
> The problem is to not give a warning when the string isn't meant as a
> connection name at all, but as a libpq conninfo string (which can
> perfectly reasonably run to more than 63 characters).  Most if not all
> of the dblink functions will accept either.
>
> Perhaps a reasonable compromise is to issue the truncation warnings when
> an overlength name is being *entered* into the connection table, but not
> for simple lookups.

Can't we distinguish a name from a conninfo string by the presence of an 
= sign?

cheers

andrew