Re: [Bulk] Re: quoted identifier behaviour

Stephan Szabo wrote:
> 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".
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

Your right. Its not a correct example. I think the point is clear, though.

Randall