Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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