From: | "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd) |
Date: | 2001-08-15 16:55:16 |
Message-ID: | 200108151655.f7FGtGma006141@linda.lfix.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Would anyone like to comment on the advisability or otherwise of
my complying with this request?
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:25:46 -0500
From: The Doctor What <docwhat(at)gerf(dot)org>
To: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer
- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Oliver Elphick (olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk) [010814 18:10]:
> The Doctor What wrote:
> >Package: postgresql-client
> >Version: 7.1.2-1.1
> >Severity: normal
> >Tags: woody
> >
> >In src/include/postgres_ext.h about line 39:
> >
> >If you change the NAMEDATALEN from 32 to something larger (like 256) it
> >makes psql work with databases with a larger table size.
> >
> >It *should* be okay for only PSQL to be compiled with like this.
> >
> >You probably don't want to compile the server with this option due to =
this
> >warning:
> >NOTE that databases with different NAMEDATALEN's cannot interoperate!
>
> If the server is not compiled with a longer NAMEDATALEN what is the point
> of doing it with the client? The two are meant to work together.
>
> I suppose you would like to talk to some other server where the length is
> greater, and there is no reason why you should not do that with your
> own system by building from the source. But please explain why it should
> be done with the official Debian package.
Don't get me wrong, I think it should be expanded for the DB, too.
But the comment implies it'll break people's DBs with a shorter name
length. Or is it the case that it only breaks if you go *back* to
using a postgres server with shorter lengths.
Your analysis is correct, though, that I'm using a (remote) server
with longer table names.
The reason I thought it worth doing in the client only is that it
can be (and is a lot in the jobs I'm doing) used to talk to remote
databases. I have found that a lot of the businesses I have delt
with do increase the tablename length to at least 128, usually 256.
Ciao!
- --=20
I'm at two with nature.
-- Woody Allen
The Doctor What: Kaboom! http://docwhat.gerf.org/
docwhat(at)gerf(dot)org KF6VNC
- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7eqKKkJDks3INMZURAoO1AKCfAYIsElvnTT5efkU3GP+FYn4+ywCguixO
dOXGAMnIy1djIQjhFgKfuXc=
=nwsW
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C--
------- End of Forwarded Message
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the
Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance
and supplication for all saints." Ephesians 6:18
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Crotwell | 2001-08-15 17:08:19 | Re: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question |
Previous Message | roypgsqlgen | 2001-08-15 16:42:49 | RE: why no stored procedures? |