| 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 18:01:25 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0912231001y6cefe4dcg84102e38265251a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> No, not really. Past the grammar there is no way to tell concurrently
> from "concurrently", ie, if we did it like that then you couldn't even
> use double quotes to get around it. Don't overthink this: either we
> reserve the word or we don't put in the feature.
Well still in the realm of overthinking.... Is there anything to be
gained by having a class of reserved word which can be used for
columns but not relations? I think most of the conflicts we worry
about are with column names, not table names, and reserving names from
use as index names isn't even a standards violation.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-23 18:13:44 | Re: creating index names automatically? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-23 17:10:37 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove code that attempted to rename index columns to keep them |