Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN
Date
Msg-id 20170831030425.GA2355@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN  (Emrul <emrul@emrul.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul  3, 2017 at 11:31:01AM -0700, Emrul wrote:
> 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 cases where 63 characters can't
> descriptively describe a column name.  I've been on projects where we have

I am coming in late on this, but just to clarify, the NAMEDATALEN is in
_bytes_, meaning multi-byte names are often less than 63 characters.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] code cleanup empty string initializations
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions