Re: Truncation of object names

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> >> Seems to me that if you want a bunch of CREATEs to be mutually
> >> dependent, then you wrap them all in a BEGIN/END block.
>
> > Yes, but... The second and third commands weren't supposed to be
> > related to the first at all, never mind dependent on it. They were
> > made dependent by PG crushing the names together.
>
> Good point.
>
> > We are thinking about working around the name length limitation
> > (encountered in migrating from other dbs) by allowing "foo.bar.baz"
> > name syntax, as a sort of rudimentary namespace mechanism.
>
> 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 ...

Tom (or others) --

Other than (a) it wastes a bit of space in the pg_ tables, and (b) it may
screw up postgresql utility programs (pgaccess, pgadmin, etc.), is there
any reason to keep the default at 32? Are there performance limitations?
(Will C-based triggers and client programs and such need to be modified?)

I don't think that my tables are incredibly verbose, autogenerated
sequence and index names often push the limit. The problem w/everyone
compiling it at a higher number is that it makes it difficult to
transparently move a PG database from one server to another.

Thanks!

--
Joel Burton <jburton(at)scw(dot)org>
Director of Information Systems, Support Center of Washington