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 <br...@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 + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
