On Monday 23 June 2008 18:23:27 Michael Bayer wrote: > On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > i can make several tests about how the combination of tablename, > > colname, seqname, indexname alone and some of them in pairs > > behave around max_single_name_len=64 - below, at and above it. > > i've no iea about schemas but i guess they can be added later. > > well I'm going off this doc: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/datatype-numeric.htm >l#DATATYPE-SERIAL > > which doesn't say what to do when the identifiers are too long. grammar-wise, it will truncate anything to 63. And then complain about the thing is missing - or worse, find another one (wrong) and use that.
> I think we'd be more immune to issues in this area if we just do a > little reflection from pg_catalog to get the actual sequence name. whatever, as long as duplicates are avoided (i.e two different long names truncated into same shorter name) > This is a straightforward but somewhat tedious enhancement to the > PG module. The current workaround of just putting in your own > Sequence() doesn't seem too terrible to me. it's all ok, i've renamed my models - i'm just spotting some things along the way. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
