From: | Gunther Schadow <gunther(at)aurora(dot)regenstrief(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | trouble with object names ... |
Date: | 2002-04-16 14:48:25 |
Message-ID: | 3CBC39B9.9020300@aurora.regenstrief.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
I always hated the fact that Oracle limits the object names to
31 characters. Why is pgsql doing the same? I thought the cool
thing about pgsql was that it made no difference how big a
string value is and varchar limits were more or less a backwards-
compatibility "feature". Why this constraint on names?
This is a real problem with the automatic name comer-upper for
things like constraingts. For instance:
CREATE TABLE Clinical_variable (
value_quantitative_low_bound char
CHECK (value_quantitative_low_bound IN ('[', '(');
value_quantitative_high_bound
CHECK (value_quantitative_high_bound IN (']', ')');
)
which leads to:
ERROR: Duplicate CHECK constraint name: 'clinical_variab_value_quantitat'
apparently it simply concatenates the table name and column
name then truncates to fit. That is never safe. I could fix
the name generator but I really would prefer no length
contraints instead. Is that a big deal?
regards
-Gunther
--
Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow(at)regenstrief(dot)org
Medical Information Scientist Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
Adjunct Assistant Professor Indiana University School of Medicine
tel:1(317)630-7960 http://aurora.regenstrief.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikolay Mihaylov | 2002-04-16 14:51:13 | Backup very large databases |
Previous Message | Gunther Schadow | 2002-04-16 14:47:47 | how to assign primary key or unique constraint to pre-existing index? |