RE: Truncation of object names

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Truncation of object names
Date: 2001-04-17 02:16:41
Message-ID: ECEHIKNFIMMECLEBJFIGAEELCAAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Call me thick as two planks, but when you guys constantly refer to 'schema
support' in PostgreSQL, what exactly are you referring to?

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Saturday, 14 April 2001 5:46 AM
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:27:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Have you thought about simply increasing NAMEDATALEN in your
>> installation? If you really are generating names that aren't unique
>> in 31 characters, that seems like the way to go ...

> We discussed that, and will probably do it (too).

> One problem is that, having translated "foo.bar.baz" to "foo_bar_baz",
> you have a problem when you encounter "foo.bar_baz" in subsequent code.

So it's not really so much that NAMEDATALEN is too short for your
individual names, it's that you are concatenating names as a workaround
for the lack of schema support.

FWIW, I believe schemas are very high on the priority list for 7.2 ...

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message bpalmer 2001-04-17 02:31:58 broken web server?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-04-17 00:07:26 Re: No printable 7.1 docs?