RE: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length
От | Nat Howard |
---|---|
Тема | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 000101bead2d$6a78fc80$1242abc7@dummy.cello-us.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Just a suggestion: use an printably-encoded version of md5 or sha, which are cryptographic hash algorithms. It will make the name completely predictable: if(too_long(name)) {name = md5(name); } It will be *very* unlikely that there are any collisions. Of course, a person won't say "gee, party_address_relation_code_types_seq is too long, I guess that will turn out to be d4420a3105e98e3e2e12c5c73019db59". > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Lockhart > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 12:26 AM > To: Tom Lane > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Zalman Stern > Subject: 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... > > - Tom > > -- > Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu > South Pasadena, California > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: