Tom, thank you for that pointer. I get now that it is not free and therefore
why its not something that should be changed by default.
I guess the problem is 'build your own copy' (i.e. compiling from source) is
something that sends most DB teams running into the hills.
A solution might be to
Yes, for the example given in the Reddit post I would tend to agree. This is
one of those issues where for the most part the solution is better naming
conventions but for the few instances where this isn't possible it is a
right pain.
--
View this message in context:
Hi hackers,
This question came up again on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/6kyyev/i_have_hit_the_table_name_length_limit_a_number/
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
I suspect you're right. I've looked at the code and it will be very difficult
(especially if I want to do it as an extension rather than patching
Postgres) and with all the stuff I'd need to do to make it work you're also
right that it probably won't improve upon just using primary key Ids.
I've
Thanks Craig, I will look at that code.
The alternative I'm considering is whether I can define my own index type on
the column storing my array of primary key ids. The index would, for each
primary key id just provide a reference to the ctids of the related records.
In theory, I think this
Hi,
I'm working on an idea to implement a graph database in Postgres. At the
moment its just a learning exercise.
What I'd like to do is store a reference to all the links from one record
using an array type that stores links to all related tables.
At first, I've succeeded in doing this using
