From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] BUG? serials and primary keys (was Re: [INTERFACES] Bug in psql?) |
Date: | 1999-05-12 17:53:27 |
Message-ID: | 25380.926531607@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> Any problem with truncating the field name?
I don't need to test it to see the problem with that idea:
create table averylongtablename (
averylongfieldname1 serial,
averylongfieldname2 serial);
We'd need to add code to ensure uniqueness of the truncated names,
which is doable but it's not a trivial change.
Another possibility is to use user-unfriendly names for the subsidiary
objects, like
pg_serial_seq_69845873
but I can't say that I like that either... it's nice to be able to
look at a sequence and know what it's for...
> Hmm, this raises another point: problem with serial in 6.4.2 with
> MixedCase table of field names (wrapped for your email viewing
> pleasure):
Yes, that was reported recently --- I believe Thomas is looking at it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-12 18:06:59 | Re: [HACKERS] WHERE vs HAVING |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-05-12 17:51:18 | WHERE vs HAVING |