On 07/03/2017 11:31 AM, Emrul wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> This question came up again on Reddit:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/6kyyev/i_have_hit_the_table_name_length_limit_a_number/
> and I thought I'd echo it here.
>
> I totally am on board with short, descriptive names and a good convention.
> However, there are just so many cases where 63 characters can't
> descriptively describe a column name. I've been on projects where we have
> one table maybe with only a few thousand records but hundreds of columns
> each uniquely describing an attribute on the record. It is a challenge
> bordering on impossible to fit them into a consistently named field of <63
> characters that someone can later refer to and know what piece of
> information it actually refers to.
>
> Is this something that can be revisited for an upcoming release? Also, are
> there any technical problems that would be created by increasing this
> attribute?
Although I appreciate the sentiment this seems over the top:
datasystem_adjustmentmanagement_mm_datasystem_adjustmentmanagement_products
You can always use COMMENT ON to explode the actual meaning.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****