Re: Is it bug ?
| От | Ivar |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Is it bug ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | bcq80p$5hk$1@main.gmane.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Is it bug ? ("Ivar" <ivar@lumisoft.ee>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
May be its wiser to add additional(may be more than 1) _ between table and column. This solves problem. (For current problem it works, see if I'm missing somethig) CREATE TABLE m_tvh ( web_teid varchar(40) UNIQUE ); CREATE TABLE m_tvh_web ( teid varchar(40) UNIQUE ); Both wany make index with name 'm_tvh_web_teid_key'. new results will be: 1) m_tvh__web_teid 2) m_tvh_web__teid "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in message news:170.1055956685@sss.pgh.pa.us... > "Ivar" <ivar@lumisoft.ee> writes: > > "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> wrote > >> We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY > >> definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names? > > > MS SQL adds funny names as columnName_236321_215251_156, seems that adds > > some random at end to avoid similar errors. > > I think it's good that the index name is predictable. I think we should > stick to the existing behavior as much as we can. > > It would probably make sense to check if the generated name is actually > unused, and to stick some digits on the end if not. For example, try > tab_col_key > tab_col_key1 > tab_col_key2 > etc. until we find an unused name. Of course this is still subject to > race conditions, but I think in practice it will solve the problem. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: