I have a similar problem. Where I have both long table names and long
column names. Has the increase of the NAMEDATALEN been targeted for a
release? From my perspective, I would prefer if the algorithm to determine
the sequence name was more of a function on the table name rather than a
combination of the table name and column name, as I have never created a
table that has more than one sequence in it.
I would also welcome the ability to have the drop table command drop the
sequence as well.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ian Barwick
Sent: February 12, 2002 4:58 PM
To: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nbazin@ingenico.com.au; Brent Verner
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug #581: Sequence cannot be deleted
On Tuesday 12 February 2002 21:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe that the surprising-name problem will largely go away anyway
> as soon as we get around to increasing the default NAMEDATALEN. With
> a decent name length no one would ever see truncation in practice.
Sorry to butt in here, but I would second this suggestion. One of my
databases
has rather long-winded table and field names (mostly in German, which
doesn't
help much ;-). There aren't any which exceed 31 characters on their own, but
sequences can get scarily long, so I always build with NAMEDATALEN set to
128,
just to be on the safe side.
Is there any reason for the default value (31 characters?), or are there
any performance issues associated with longer values?
> Also, of course, what we really want is for SERIAL sequences to get
> dropped by themselves when the parent table is dropped, and then users
> don't need to know what the generated sequence name is ...
This would be nice.
Yours
Ian Barwick
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html