Re: [HACKERS] A notice for too long names

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A notice for too long names
Date: 2000-01-20 15:55:05
Message-ID: 21095.948383705@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> Wouldn't it be fair if a notice was generated if you attempt to create
>> and/or reference a name that's longer than NAMEDATALEN.

> Would it be better to throw an elog(ERROR)?

Definitely NOT. Rejecting long identifiers went out with Dartmouth Basic.

The only reason to worry at all is if someone uses two identifiers that
are the same for the first NAMEDATALEN characters --- but if so, he'll
get an error about duplicate column or duplicate table name. I see no
real reason to change the current behavior...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-01-20 16:01:03 Re: [HACKERS] timezone problem?
Previous Message Don Baccus 2000-01-20 15:38:38 Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?