Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> >
> > 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...
>
> I've been wondering for some time why at all to build the
And me -:)
> index and sequence names from those table/fieldnames. Only to
> make them guessable?
>
> What about building them from the tables OID plus the column
> numbers. That way, auto created sequences could also be
> automatically removed on a DROP TABLE because the system can
> "guess" them.
Actually, we should use names not allowed in CREATE statements!
So I would use "pg_" prefix...
Vadim
