Re: Table name lengths...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>
Cc: PgSQL General ML <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Table name lengths...
Date: 2003-09-02 17:47:20
Message-ID: 22130.1062524840@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
> No matter how long PostgreSQL lets you make table names, I'd stick
> with ANSI standard 31 characters.

"ANSI standard"? SQL92 specifies that names can be up to 128 characters
long. Perhaps there was a shorter limit in SQL89, but that ranks as
ancient history now.

(In fact, I just now realized that it says *characters*, not *bytes*,
which means that in a multibyte encoding you could need quite a bit more
than 128 bytes to meet the spec's requirement...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-02 17:57:21 Re: segfaults / backend crashing
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2003-09-02 17:46:15 Re: Table name lengths...