Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
