RE: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-16 Thread Mike Mascari
ECTED] Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names Call me thick as two planks, but when you guys constantly refer to 'schema support' in PostgreSQL, what exactly are you referring to? Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP

RE: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-16 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:27:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Have you thought about simply increasing NAMEDATALEN in your >> installation? If you really are generating names

Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-13 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:27:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Have you thought about simply increasing NAMEDATALEN in your >> installation? If you really are generating names that aren't unique >> in 31 characters, that seems like the way to go ... > We

Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-13 Thread Nathan Myers
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:27:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > > We are thinking about working around the name length limitation > > (encountered in migrating from other dbs) by allowing "foo.bar.baz" > > name syntax, as a sort of rudimentary namespace mec

Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-13 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: >> Seems to me that if you want a bunch of CREATEs to be mutually >> dependent, then you wrap them all in a BEGIN/END block. > Yes, but... The second and third commands weren't supposed to be > related to the first at all, never mind dependent on it. Th

Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-13 Thread Nathan Myers
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 02:54:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > > Sorry, false alarm. When I got the test case, it turned out to > > be the more familiar problem: > > > create table foo_..._bar1 (id1 ...); > > [notice, "foo_..._bar1" truncated to "foo

Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-13 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > Sorry, false alarm. When I got the test case, it turned out to > be the more familiar problem: > create table foo_..._bar1 (id1 ...); > [notice, "foo_..._bar1" truncated to "foo_..._bar"] > create table foo_..._bar (id2 ...); > [error, foo_.

[HACKERS] Truncation of object names

2001-04-13 Thread Nathan Myers
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 01:16:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > > We have noticed here also that object (e.g. table) names get truncated > > in some places and not others. If you create a table with a long name, > > PG truncates the name and creates a tabl