From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |
Date: | 2007-04-09 00:09:59 |
Message-ID: | 12576.1176077399@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't suggest that we stop using the naming convention,
>> but it would no longer be a hard-and-fast rule, just a convention.
>> In particular we could rejigger things around the edges to reduce
>> the name conflict problem. For instance the rule for forming array type
>> names could be "prepend _, truncate to less than 64 bytes if necessary,
>> then substitute numbers at the end if needed to get something unique".
>> This is not all that different from what we do now to get unique
>> serial sequence names, for example.
> Sounds OK but I'd add something that might make it even more unlikely to
> generate a name clash.
Like what? I don't want to stray far from _foo when we don't have to,
because I'm sure there is user code out there that'll still rely on
that naming convention; we shouldn't break it if we don't have to.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-04-09 00:35:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-04-08 23:36:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-04-09 00:35:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-04-08 23:36:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |