Tom Lane wrote:
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.

                        
Oh, in that case maybe we'd better live with it :-(

I certainly think we should deprecate relying on it.

cheers

andrew


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

               http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Reply via email to