| From: | wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
| Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, vadim(at)krs(dot)ru, lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, zalman(at)netcom(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
| Date: | 1999-06-02 14:34:05 |
| Message-ID: | m10pC5l-0003kGC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > I like it.
>
> Perhaps eventually we should wind up using names like "pg_pkey_8381292"
> but I think this ought to wait until the system retains an explicit
> representation of the relationship between these indexes/sequences and
> the owning table, and until we think through the consequences for
> pg_dump. For now we had better stick to unprivileged names.
Of course! I didn't meant to do anything on it for v6.5.
Implementing automatic sequence deletion if they got created
due to serial fields is definitely feature. And I agree that
all the odds and ends have to get discussed down first.
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) #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 1999-06-02 14:40:04 | Re:ORDER BY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-02 13:41:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |