RE: Truncation of object names
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-04-17T02:16:41Z
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@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane Sent: Saturday, 14 April 2001 5:46 AM To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names ncm@zembu.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