Re: [Bulk] Re: quoted identifier behaviour

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:

> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> > that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
> > idea.
> >
> > For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
> > standard quite clearly says it's <>.
> >
> > If you're relying on case folding meaning that you don't have to
> > consistently use the same capitalization when referring to variables,
> > table names, people, or anything else, you're asking for trouble down
> > the line, and for little or no real gain today.
> >
> > I know that a lot of times we are stuck with some commercial package
> > that we can't do anything to fix, so I'm not aiming this comment at the
> > average dba, but at the developer.
>
> Yea, this is a commercial package, but it's actually doing it right.
> Since it doesn't know how a user will name a table or column, it always
> calls them as quoted strings in upper case which is standards compliant,
> but doesn't work with PG. So if a user names a table 55 and mine, it
> calls "55 AND MINE" and for foo, it calls "FOO". Looks like they did it
> right to me.

Maybe, but the 55 and mine example may or may not actually work. 55 and
mine isn't a valid regular identifier. "55 and mine" would be a valid
identifier, but that's not the same identifier as "55 AND MINE".