Re: [HACKERS] Truncation of object names

[Tom Lane]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
>> Seems to me that if you want a bunch of CREATEs to be mutually
>> dependent, then you wrap them all in a BEGIN/END block.

> Yes, but...  The second and third commands weren't supposed to be 
> related to the first at all, never mind dependent on it.  They were 
> made dependent by PG crushing the names together.

Good point.

> We are thinking about working around the name length limitation 
> (encountered in migrating from other dbs) by allowing "foo.bar.baz" 
> name syntax, as a sort of rudimentary namespace mechanism.

Have you thought about simply increasing NAMEDATALEN in your
installation?  If you really are generating names that aren't unique
in 31 characters, that seems like the way to go ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster