Re: Is there a drawback when changing NAMEDATALEN to 64?

Bill McGonigle wrote:
>
> On Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 06:53 , Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > BTW, I noticed the other day that both SQL92 and SQL99 specify the
> > maximum identifier length as 128. So really there is a standardization
> > argument for pushing it up to 128 ...
>
> Yeah, I realize this was a month ago. :)
>
> One question: What is an identifier defined as? The reason I'm being
> pendantic is that I've run into trouble not with any particular table or
> column name being > 32, but the automated key name generated for tables
> with a NOT NULL UNIQUE column is table_column_key, which easily busts
> the limit.
>
> The reason I ask is because if an identifier is only defined as
> something like a column name or table name, then NAMEDATALEN would have
> to be 128+128+5, if I did the math right.

I guess we just hope then don't max out the fields as much as they do
with the 32 limit. Theoretically, yes, you could still overflow the
limit.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026