Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> I don't suggest that we stop using the naming convention,
>>> but it would no longer be a hard-and-fast rule, just a convention.
>>> In particular we could rejigger things around the edges to reduce
>>> the name conflict problem. For instance the rule for forming array type
>>> names could be "prepend _, truncate to less than 64 bytes if necessary,
>>> then substitute numbers at the end if needed to get something unique".
>>> This is not all that different from what we do now to get unique
>>> serial sequence names, for example.
>>>
>
>
>> Sounds OK but I'd add something that might make it even more unlikely to
>> generate a name clash.
>>
>
> Like what? I don't want to stray far from _foo when we don't have to,
> because I'm sure there is user code out there that'll still rely on
> that naming convention; we shouldn't break it if we don't have to.
>
>
>
Oh, in that case maybe we'd better live with it :-(

I certainly think we should deprecate relying on it.

cheers

andrew