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...

    I've  been  wondering  for  some time why at all to build the
    index and sequence names from those table/fieldnames. Only to
    make them guessable?

    What  about building them from the tables OID plus the column
    numbers.  That way, auto  created  sequences  could  also  be
    automatically  removed on a DROP TABLE because the system can
    "guess" them.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #