From: | Bill McGonigle <mcgonigle(at)medicalmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64? |
Date: | 2002-02-26 23:25:32 |
Message-ID: | 20C2A74E-2B10-11D6-B91E-003065EAE3C0@medicalmedia.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 06:53 , Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I noticed the other day that both SQL92 and SQL99 specify the
> maximum identifier length as 128. So really there is a standardization
> argument for pushing it up to 128 ...
Yeah, I realize this was a month ago. :)
One question: What is an identifier defined as? The reason I'm being
pendantic is that I've run into trouble not with any particular table or
column name being > 32, but the automated key name generated for tables
with a NOT NULL UNIQUE column is table_column_key, which easily busts
the limit.
The reason I ask is because if an identifier is only defined as
something like a column name or table name, then NAMEDATALEN would have
to be 128+128+5, if I did the math right.
BTW, I keep my patch for configuring it in 7.1 at:
http://www.zettabyte.net/downloads/postgres/namedatalen-patch/
in case anyone needs it.
-Bill
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Helge Bahmann | 2002-02-26 23:41:36 | Re: configure --with-pam |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-02-26 23:03:35 | Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your |