From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Rosenberg <jr(at)amanue(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Column name beginning with underscore ("_")? |
Date: | 2024-11-04 20:33:42 |
Message-ID: | e70653cd-0bb2-4861-8664-7fc8243846b7@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/4/24 12:02, Jim Rosenberg wrote:
> Is it considered bad Postgresql practice to have a column name that begins
> with the underscore character ("_")?
>
> I'm not sure where this is documented, but I'm seeing that Postgresql
> accepts prepending an underscore to a data type name as a kind of alias for
> appending [] to define an array data type. So even though Postgresql
> doesn't seem to have this problem, a human reader might confuse a column
> name beginning with _ as an array data type reference.
>
> Here is why I want to have some column names beginning with "_". I'm
> designing a database to shadow a public agency's data. I need some columns
> that reflect *my* shadow copy of the data, (like say download date) that
> don't have any semantic import with respect to the original data.
> Beginning such columns with "_" is a simple way to keep the column names
> uncluttered but indicate to the reader that the column applies to *my
> copy* but are not columns in the original data.
To reduce confusion something like?:
my_* or l(ocal)_*
>
> Comments?
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2024-11-04 20:45:54 | Re: Used memory calculation in containers - docker stats and file cache |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-11-04 20:10:53 | Re: Column name beginning with underscore ("_")? |