Re: creating index names automatically?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 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 20:15:14
Message-ID: 603c8f070912231215t373496afq416ae5a445c1ba09@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> If there were more than a single member of the class, I might think
>>> it was worth the trouble ...
>
>> A quick glace at the list shows relatively few that actually need to
>> be barred from columns. I could easily see people wanting to use
>> columns named LEFT and RIGHT or VERBOSE.  I suppose they've been there
>> for a long time already though.
>
> Hm.  I do not believe it'd work for LEFT/RIGHT because of join condition
> syntax, but it might for ANALYZE, FREEZE, and VERBOSE; which would
> actually amount to a pretty significant percentage of our
> totally-outside-any-spec reserved words.
>
> I'm still not really eager to introduce yet another category of
> keywords, but perhaps it is worth doing.  Comments?

I'm about to get on a plane, but just to make you hurl here's another
half-assed approach.

...Robert

Attachment Content-Type Size
gross.patch application/octet-stream 2.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-23 20:52:06 Re: creating index names automatically?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-23 20:09:46 Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations