Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length

>
> > How about something like this: if the code finds that the names are
> > too long when forming an implicit index name, it truncates the names
> > to fit, and you are OK as long as the truncated name is unique.
> > Comments? Objections? I think I could argue that this is a bug fix
> > and deserves to be slipped into 6.5 ;-)
>
> I understand some folks think this is a problem, but have been
> reluctant to include a "randomizer" in the created index name since it
> would make the index name less clearly predictable. May as well use
> something like "idx_<procid>_<timestamp>" or somesuch...
>
> No real objection though, other than aesthetics. And those only count
> for so much...

I've been wondering for some time why at all to build the
index and sequence names from those table/fieldnames. Only to
make them guessable?

What about building them from the tables OID plus the column
numbers. That way, auto created sequences could also be
automatically removed on a DROP TABLE because the system can
"guess" them.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #