>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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
>
> And me -:)
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, we should use names not allowed in CREATE statements!
> So I would use "pg_" prefix...
This would implicitly deny the user from dropping the created
index for a unique constraint :-) Same for the sequences -
what's good because they are used in the default clauses for
the serial field and dropping the sequence would corrupt the
table though.
I like it.
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) #