> How about something like this: if the code finds that the names are
> too long when forming an implicit index name, it truncates the names
> to fit, and you are OK as long as the truncated name is unique.
> Comments? Objections? I think I could argue that this is a bug fix
> and deserves to be slipped into 6.5 ;-)
I understand some folks think this is a problem, but have been
reluctant to include a "randomizer" in the created index name since it
would make the index name less clearly predictable. May as well use
something like "idx_<procid>_<timestamp>" or somesuch...
No real objection though, other than aesthetics. And those only count
for so much...
- Tom
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
