HansF wrote:
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
>
>>I disagree, well not with ridiculously long column or table names per se,
>>but I do think that the 30 character limit on identifiers is overly
>>restrictive.
>
>
> Doesn't the spec call for 18 char?
>
> If my belief is correct, it might be more beneficial to change the spec than
> try to move Oracle. At least we'd reduce the inconsistency between vendors
> by 1 minor notch.
>
> /Hans
The spec as in SQL Standard? If there is one consistent message coming
from this group it is that customers shall exploit vendor specific
extensions ;-)
FWIW DB2 is moving towards VARCHAR(128) for all identifiers, no matter
which ones.
Niall's example is the one that I find bites most in SQL Server
migration. Index, triggers, constraints are big hitters for that reason:
"TABLEX_AFT_UPDATE_DO_SOMETHING_FE_ROW"
The problem for any vendor is: Increasing the limit has zero marketing
value. (And it's very uncool for development to boot :-0)
It's like an arms race. If one vendor starts the rest has to follow :-(
Cheers
Serge
Received on Thu Nov 25 2004 - 08:57:18 CST
