| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Emrul <emrul(at)emrul(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Revisiting NAMEDATALEN |
| Date: | 2017-08-31 03:04:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20170831030425.GA2355@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:31:01AM -0700, Emrul wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> This question came up again on Reddit:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/6kyyev/i_have_hit_the_table_name_length_limit_a_number/
> and I thought I'd echo it here.
>
> I totally am on board with short, descriptive names and a good convention.
> However, there are just so many cases where 63 characters can't
> descriptively describe a column name. I've been on projects where we have
I am coming in late on this, but just to clarify, the NAMEDATALEN is in
_bytes_, meaning multi-byte names are often less than 63 characters.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-08-31 03:15:59 | Re: More replication race conditions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-08-31 03:02:33 | code cleanup empty string initializations |