| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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?
| 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? |