Hi
út 16. 9. 2025 v 3:57 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> In the wake of the discussion around bug #18959 [1], here is
> a modest proposal for improving the names we pick for expression
> indexes. The commit message explains the details, but this
> example should give the flavor:
>
> postgres=# cr
In the wake of the discussion around bug #18959 [1], here is
a modest proposal for improving the names we pick for expression
indexes. The commit message explains the details, but this
example should give the flavor:
postgres=# create table mytab (f1 int, f2 text, f3 text);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 8:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Question is, why should we care about that?
It's a fair question, and I can't think of any hard-and-fast reason.
However, I suspect that some users may not like it; the quick -1 from
Pavel lends credence to that theory, IMHO. People do use DDL com
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> More generally, maybe map all the various common accessor operators to “.”
> instead of using them directly and capture the constants when chained from
> a column.
That seems fairly useless. You still have a name that requires
double quotes, and you can't tell one o
On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:56 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > If there are no function names present, output “expr” in lieu of a
> function name. Then just output any columns that are present. No
> operators, no constants.
>
> In the previ
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I fear consistently exceeding 63 bytes of identifier length if we choose to
> display the entire expression in the name.
I was worried about that too, but at least among our regression test
cases, there are none that come even close to 63 bytes under this
proposal.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:56 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>> If there are no function names present, output “expr” in lieu of a function
>> name. Then just output any columns that are present. No operators, no
>> constants.
> In the previous discussion, the user's exp
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:56 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> If there are no function names present, output “expr” in lieu of a function
> name. Then just output any columns that are present. No operators, no
> constants.
In the previous discussion, the user's expression indexes were on
these
On Monday, September 15, 2025, Tom Lane wrote:
> In the wake of the discussion around bug #18959 [1], here is
> a modest proposal for improving the names we pick for expression
> indexes. The commit message explains the details, but this
> example should give the flavor:
>
> postgres=# create ta
