Dave,

Any thoughts on what do you think could be done regarding the index
names? Are you guys willing to shorten them a bit for us :-) ?

Elias

On 8/29/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No I haven't had a chance to take a look yet. I hope to get to it this
> week when I work on the 2.0 database migration stuff.
> 
> - Dave
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Elias Torres wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> > I'm not sure if you missed my message or have not had time to look at
> > the patch. Just in case, here's the link to my earlier message [1]
> >
> > Elias
> >
> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/8nklz
> >
> > On 8/23/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Lance Lavandowska wrote:
> >>> On 8/21/05, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> - DB2 has a (seems-to-me) hard limit on identifier names for
> >>>> constraints and indexes to 18 chars. I had to shorten them.
> >>>> - It's illegal for column definitions to contain simply a "null"
> >>>> after
> >>>> the coltype (it's the default).
> >>
> >> I knew there were still database with crazy column name limitations.
> >>
> >> I guess the proposed "roller_" prefix is too much.
> >>
> >> Elias: do you have a patch that goes against the 2.0 version of
> >> createdb.sql?
> >>
> >> - Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that is the default for most DBs, so this change
> >>> shouldn't be an issue (removing the 'allows null' declarations).
> >>>
> >>>> - It's a column definition is of type varchar, the default value
> >>>> cannot be 0.
> >>>
> >>> Example please.
> >>>
> >>>> - If I use db2 -tvf createdb.sql, it seems to fail when comments are
> >>>> embedded in a create table definition.
> >>>
> >>> Ugh.  I suppose we could move comments to be before the table
> >>> definition.
> >>>
> >>>> In addition to that I had to add extra keywords to the foreign key
> >>>> constraints, so an extra property at the end of the contraints would
> >>>
> >>> We could add a generic transform (keyword substitution) at the end of
> >>> each foreign key declaration, but that seems rather hackish.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else have comments?
> >>>
> >>> Lance
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>

Reply via email to