| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, zalman(at)netcom(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
| Date: | 1999-06-02 09:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3754F837.AB018DCA@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> >
> > 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...
>
> I've been wondering for some time why at all to build the
And me -:)
> index and sequence names from those table/fieldnames. Only to
> make them guessable?
>
> What about building them from the tables OID plus the column
> numbers. That way, auto created sequences could also be
> automatically removed on a DROP TABLE because the system can
> "guess" them.
Actually, we should use names not allowed in CREATE statements!
So I would use "pg_" prefix...
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Keith Parks | 1999-06-02 09:33:00 | Rules puzzle with "current" keyword. |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-06-02 08:51:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |