Jim Starkey wrote:

> Leyne, Sean wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is a useful feature, also considering its presence in the
>>> SQL specification (IIRC, it's the only feature from the core subset of
>>> SQL-92 which we don't support), but I wouldn't call it really urgent
>>> (although I'd assign it a higher priority than longer-then-31-char
>>> identifiers-but-without-schemas :-).
>>>
>> I disagree!
>>
>> "Longer-then-31-char identifiers-but-without-schemas" is an absolute priority.
>>
>> Length of identifiers is an issue which is independent of the schemas.
>>
>>
>>
> The length of identifiers is an artifact of the way system metadata is
> initialized. As originally designed, the core metadata has a hardcoded
> representation used to bootstrap access to system tables. And, worse,
> system tables are (were?) by id, rather than name.
>

IMO, there is only one "difficult" problem to increase the max. identifier length: a change in DSQL API.

And together with length increase, others things should be done: change from UNICODE_FSS to UTF8 and remove hacks related to byte vs character length.


Adriano