On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
>
> > Yes, but even if we eventually fix that my impression is that we would
> > still enforce a limit of 128 characters (or bytes) as this is the SQL
> > specification.
>
> Probably not. I think SQL says that's the minim
On 8/09/21 2:08 am, Tom Lane wrote:
Julien Rouhaud writes:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:31 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
Yeah. We should try to work toward removing the limits on NAMEDATALEN
for the attribute names. Easier said than done :)
Yes, but even if we eventually fix that my impression is
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:31 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah. We should try to work toward removing the limits on NAMEDATALEN
>> for the attribute names. Easier said than done :)
> Yes, but even if we eventually fix that my impression is that we would
> still enforce
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:31 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Yeah. We should try to work toward removing the limits on NAMEDATALEN
> for the attribute names. Easier said than done :)
Yes, but even if we eventually fix that my impression is that we would
still enforce a limit of 128 characters (or
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 01:11:49PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Yes, that's because json identifiers have different rules from
> relation identifiers. Your only option here is to use the real /
> truncated identifier. Also I don't think it would be a good thing to
> add a way to truncate identi
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:27 AM Денис Романенко wrote:
>
> If we create a column name longer than 64 bytes, it will be truncated in
> PostgreSQL to max (NAMEDATALEN) length.
>
> For example:
> "VeryLongNameVeryLongNameVeryLongNameVeryLongNameVeryLongNameVeryLongName"
> will be truncated in data
