From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Chuck McDevitt <cmcdevitt(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, beau hargis <beauh(at)bluefrogmobile(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case |
Date: | 2006-10-31 18:06:13 |
Message-ID: | 20061031180613.GB29338@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 12:55:46PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> To this you propose, as I understand it, to have a fourth possibility
> which would be spec compliant for comparison purposes but would label
> result set columns with the case preserved name originally used (or
> would you use the casing used in the query?).
The big issue I see with this is that it would break PQfname on the
client end, since that's case sensetive too. Most client languages are,
so you really are between a rock and a hard place.
Making PQfname case-insensetive also screws up in Tom's example.
One way to appraoch this is to consider this a setting of the collation
of the name datatype. If a case-insensetive collation is selected at
initdb time, then Tom's example would indeed fail, but that's a choice
someone made. Problem being, you'd have to export that choice to
clients to make PQfname work, and that's going to messy.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lee Riquelmei | 2006-10-31 18:13:47 | work on extending PostgreSQL to data integration systems |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-10-31 17:55:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-10-31 18:22:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-10-31 17:55:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case |