Re: [HACKERS] A notice for too long names

At 10:54 PM 1/20/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>On 2000-01-20, Tom Lane mentioned:
>
>> 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.
>
>But it came back with compilers issuing warnings (hence notice) about
>them. Silently truncating input went out with GNU,

GNU C was hardly the first compiler to correctly handle identifiers
of virtually any length. I doubt if it even makes the list of the first
100...

(I get tired of GNU-worship)

How deeply embedded is the limitation on identifier length? Ideal
would be to remove any artificial limitation whatsoever.

The current situation isn't bad, since name clashes are rare - it's
not as though PostgreSQL is only keeping the first six characters
like Fortran 66! Still, all such limitations are fundamentally
irksome.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.