On 07/03/2017 11:31 AM, Emrul wrote:
This question came up again on Reddit:
and I thought I'd echo it here.
I totally am on board with short, descriptive names and a good convention.
However, there are just so many cases where 63 characters can't
descriptively describe a column name. I've been on projects where we have
one table maybe with only a few thousand records but hundreds of columns
each uniquely describing an attribute on the record. It is a challenge
bordering on impossible to fit them into a consistently named field of <63
characters that someone can later refer to and know what piece of
information it actually refers to.
Is this something that can be revisited for an upcoming release? Also, are
there any technical problems that would be created by increasing this
Although I appreciate the sentiment this seems over the top:
You can always use COMMENT ON to explode the actual meaning.
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: