From: | greg(at)turnstep(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Name limitation question |
Date: | 2003-06-25 15:18:57 |
Message-ID: | 8bd9a4ea6e00755430f1664ab553a0ea@biglumber.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> > 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.
Would it make more sense to put this in as a configure option? It
might be rarely changed, but it does seem like the right place for it.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200306251101
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html
iD8DBQE++b0LvJuQZxSWSsgRAiMxAKD3GEYVETU++nq6ye4iR8MEsmUBpgCfRngF
CW1ypGDmDFUsGCEkaTd6+PU=
=bmFP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nabil Sayegh | 2003-06-25 18:14:16 | Re: connectby(... pos_of_sibling) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-25 13:58:16 | Re: Name limitation question |