From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Zalman Stern <zalman(at)netcom(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
Date: | 1999-06-02 04:25:56 |
Message-ID: | 3754B254.5812EE37@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> How about something like this: if the code finds that the names are
> too long when forming an implicit index name, it truncates the names
> to fit, and you are OK as long as the truncated name is unique.
> Comments? Objections? I think I could argue that this is a bug fix
> and deserves to be slipped into 6.5 ;-)
I understand some folks think this is a problem, but have been
reluctant to include a "randomizer" in the created index name since it
would make the index name less clearly predictable. May as well use
something like "idx_<procid>_<timestamp>" or somesuch...
No real objection though, other than aesthetics. And those only count
for so much...
- Tom
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-02 04:33:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-02 03:34:59 | Re: [HACKERS] INET and CIDR comparisons |