Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length

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...

Vadim