On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 06:06, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > We could name the fields "________dropped_x" sort of thing perhaps???? > > > > In practice that would certainly work, especially if we increase > > NAMEDATALEN to 128 or so, as has been proposed repeatedly. > > Well, x is just an integer anyway, so even with 32 it's not a problem... > > In case anyone was wondering btw, if a column named 'dropped_1' already > exists when you drop column 1 in the table, it will be renamed like this: > > dropped1_1 > > And if that also exists, it will become > > dropped2_1 > > etc. I put that extra number after dropped and not at the end so prevent it > being off the end of a 32 character name. > > > Alternatively, we could invest a lot of work to make it possible for > > attname to be NULL, but I don't see the payoff... > > Yeah, I think a weird name should be good enough...
perhaps starting it with spaces instead of _ would make it even harder to write by accident, so tha name could be " dropped 0000000001" or to make it even more self documenting store the drop time, " col001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]" -------------------------------- --------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
