On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:45:45AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Jul-18, David HJ wrote:
>
> > As a long-time PostgreSQL user, I've increasingly run into issues with the
> > 63-byte limit for identifiers, particularly table names. This limit, while
> > historically sufficient, is becoming
On 2024-Jul-18, David HJ wrote:
> As a long-time PostgreSQL user, I've increasingly run into issues with the
> 63-byte limit for identifiers, particularly table names. This limit, while
> historically sufficient, is becoming a significant pain point in modern
> database design and usage.
This has
Hi David,
> As a long-time PostgreSQL user, I've increasingly run into issues with the
> 63-byte limit for identifiers, particularly table names. This limit, while
> historically sufficient, is becoming a significant pain point in modern
> database design and usage.
I can understand your pain.
*The Current Situation*
As a long-time PostgreSQL user, I've increasingly run into issues with the
63-byte limit for identifiers, particularly table names. This limit, while
historically sufficient, is becoming a significant pain point in modern
database design and usage.
*Real-World Examples*
The
