From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: creating index names automatically? |
Date: | 2009-12-23 11:37:44 |
Message-ID: | 407d949e0912230337l50f5547au7a91a96c75c368d7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> +1 if it prevents indexes from being named "CONCURRENTLY".
>
>> Yeah, if you really want to have an index named like that you can use
>> double quotes. Seems a sensible compromise.
>
> Well, this will also break tables and columns named "concurrently".
> I think the odds of it being a problem are small, but still it is
> a reserved word that shouldn't be reserved according to the SQL spec.
I suppose we could fix this by specifying a precedence and then
explicitly checking if you're trying to make an index named
concurrently and fixing it up later. Not unlike how you suggested we
avoid making WITH a reserved word with the comment that there was more
than one way to skin a cat
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-23 12:24:42 | Re: fdw validation function vs zero catalog id |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-23 10:50:13 | Re: Backup history file should be replicated in Streaming Replication? |