Re: Name limitation question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kaarel <kaarel(at)future(dot)ee>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Laura Nichols <LNichols(at)oacis(dot)com>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Name limitation question
Date: 2003-06-25 13:58:16
Message-ID: 25078.1056549496@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

Kaarel <kaarel(at)future(dot)ee> writes:
>> No, the default is still 63, and will probably stay there.

> Isn't the SQL standard 128 chars?

Yes. We tested that a few months ago when we raised the limit from 31
to 63, and determined that there was a nontrivial additional speed and
space penalty to raising it to 128. Since nobody could muster a
real-world use case that actually required 128, we didn't go there.
But if you feel you need to check off that particular SQL-compliance
box, see NAMEDATALEN in postgres_ext.h.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message greg 2003-06-25 15:18:57 Re: Name limitation question
Previous Message Nabil Sayegh 2003-06-25 13:36:31 Re: recursive function needs static variable