Is it bug ?
Hi,
Is it bug ?
Try to create these tables with following order
CREATE TABLE m_tvh (
web_teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);
CREATE TABLE m_tvh_web (
teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);
Both wany make index with name 'm_tvh_web_teid_key'.
Postgre version = 7.3.1.
Ivar wrote:
Hi,
Is it bug ?
Try to create these tables with following orderCREATE TABLE m_tvh (
web_teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);CREATE TABLE m_tvh_web (
teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);Both wany make index with name 'm_tvh_web_teid_key'.
Postgre version = 7.3.1.
I would say so. I don't think the standard forbids the above, and if
that is right, it clearly is a bug.
We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?
MS SQL adds funny names as columnName_236321_215251_156, seems that adds
some random at end to avoid similar errors.
"Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3EEE063A.9010805@Yahoo.com...
Show quoted text
Ivar wrote:
Hi,
Is it bug ?
Try to create these tables with following orderCREATE TABLE m_tvh (
web_teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);CREATE TABLE m_tvh_web (
teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);Both wany make index with name 'm_tvh_web_teid_key'.
Postgre version = 7.3.1.
I would say so. I don't think the standard forbids the above, and if
that is right, it clearly is a bug.We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
"Ivar" <ivar@lumisoft.ee> writes:
"Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> wrote
We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?
MS SQL adds funny names as columnName_236321_215251_156, seems that adds
some random at end to avoid similar errors.
I think it's good that the index name is predictable. I think we should
stick to the existing behavior as much as we can.
It would probably make sense to check if the generated name is actually
unused, and to stick some digits on the end if not. For example, try
tab_col_key
tab_col_key1
tab_col_key2
etc. until we find an unused name. Of course this is still subject to
race conditions, but I think in practice it will solve the problem.
regards, tom lane
May be its wiser to add additional(may be more than 1) _ between table and
column.
This solves problem.
(For current problem it works, see if I'm missing somethig)
CREATE TABLE m_tvh (
web_teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);
CREATE TABLE m_tvh_web (
teid varchar(40) UNIQUE
);
Both wany make index with name 'm_tvh_web_teid_key'.
new results will be:
1) m_tvh__web_teid
2) m_tvh_web__teid
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in message
news:170.1055956685@sss.pgh.pa.us...
Show quoted text
"Ivar" <ivar@lumisoft.ee> writes:
"Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> wrote
We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?MS SQL adds funny names as columnName_236321_215251_156, seems that adds
some random at end to avoid similar errors.I think it's good that the index name is predictable. I think we should
stick to the existing behavior as much as we can.It would probably make sense to check if the generated name is actually
unused, and to stick some digits on the end if not. For example, try
tab_col_key
tab_col_key1
tab_col_key2
etc. until we find an unused name. Of course this is still subject to
race conditions, but I think in practice it will solve the problem.regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Thats the way my graphical DB dezign tool does it.
Tom Lane wrote:
Show quoted text
"Ivar" <ivar@lumisoft.ee> writes:
"Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> wrote
We maybe should relocate auto-created indexes for UNIQUE and PKEY
definitions into some sort of special schema and give them funny names?MS SQL adds funny names as columnName_236321_215251_156, seems that adds
some random at end to avoid similar errors.I think it's good that the index name is predictable. I think we should
stick to the existing behavior as much as we can.It would probably make sense to check if the generated name is actually
unused, and to stick some digits on the end if not. For example, try
tab_col_key
tab_col_key1
tab_col_key2
etc. until we find an unused name. Of course this is still subject to
race conditions, but I think in practice it will solve the problem.regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?