| From: | Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ivar <ivar(at)lumisoft(dot)ee>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is it bug ? |
| Date: | 2003-06-18 17:48:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3EF0A5D6.4070101@cvc.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thats the way my graphical DB dezign tool does it.
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ivar" <ivar(at)lumisoft(dot)ee> writes:
>
>>"Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> wrote
>>
>>>We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
>>>definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?
>
>
>>MS SQL adds funny names as columnName_236321_215251_156, seems that adds
>>some random at end to avoid similar errors.
>
>
> I think it's good that the index name is predictable. I think we should
> stick to the existing behavior as much as we can.
>
> It would probably make sense to check if the generated name is actually
> unused, and to stick some digits on the end if not. For example, try
> tab_col_key
> tab_col_key1
> tab_col_key2
> etc. until we find an unused name. Of course this is still subject to
> race conditions, but I think in practice it will solve the problem.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Travis Hume | 2003-06-18 17:50:51 | can't "grant all on database..." |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-06-18 17:42:11 | Re: PostgreSQL calibration |