Well, I can't imagine why anyone would rely on the auto name generation of a
database... I don't know anyone (3 out of 3) who wants name collision.
What on earth is the point of generating a colliding name? It's especially
confusing for newbies.
Chrsi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: "Patches" <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Non-colliding auto generated names
>
> I thought folks wanted them to fail if they conflicted so that they
> could know for sure how to derive such names definitively. Is that
> accurate?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > This patch makes all forms of autogenerated unique, primary key and
sequence
> > names avoid collisions. (Well, as much as you can do without "locking"
your
> > chosen name).
> >
> > This addresses a long standing annoyance I experience whenever I rename
a
> > table to table_old and then try to create a table with the same name.
It
> > also addresses a concern raised at linux.conf.au.
> >
> > I suggest that someone inspect the patch to determine if my
"overloading" of
> > CreateIndexName is appropriate (for sequences, etc.)
> >
> > All regression tests pass. The attached SQL script will run fine under
the
> > patch, whereas before it would have failed miserably.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> [ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> [ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
19073
>
