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...

    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) #