| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| 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 14:58:40 |
| Message-ID: | 14473.1261580320@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-23 16:43:44 | pgsql: Remove code that attempted to rename index columns to keep them |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-12-23 14:37:21 | Re: [patch] executor and slru dtrace probes |