Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-08-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
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,

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-07 Thread Mark Dilger
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Emrul wrote: > > Tom, thank you for that pointer. I get now that it is not free and therefore > why its not something that should be changed by default. > > I guess the problem is 'build your own copy' (i.e. compiling from source) is > something

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Emrul wrote: >> A solution might be to make NAMEDATALEN configurable without having to >> recompile source (perhaps a config variable or an initdb parameter). When I >> have some free time I will

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Emrul wrote: > Tom, thank you for that pointer. I get now that it is not free and therefore > why its not something that should be changed by default. > > I guess the problem is 'build your own copy' (i.e. compiling from source) is > something

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-07 Thread Emrul
Tom, thank you for that pointer. I get now that it is not free and therefore why its not something that should be changed by default. I guess the problem is 'build your own copy' (i.e. compiling from source) is something that sends most DB teams running into the hills. A solution might be to

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-03 Thread Tom Lane
Emrul writes: > Is this something that can be revisited for an upcoming release? Also, are > there any technical problems that would be created by increasing this > attribute? This has been discussed before, eg here:

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-03 Thread Emrul
Yes, for the example given in the Reddit post I would tend to agree. This is one of those issues where for the most part the solution is better naming conventions but for the few instances where this isn't possible it is a right pain. -- View this message in context:

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 07/03/2017 11:31 AM, 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

[HACKERS] Revisiting NAMEDATALEN

2017-07-03 Thread Emrul
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