Re: proposal: function parse_ident

2015-08-20 2:22 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> >> Don't say "parse names for things other than tables". Only a minority
> >> of the types of objects used in the database have names that meet this
> >> specification.
>
> > Really? My impression is that almost everything that's not a shared
> > object allows for a schema...
>
> Tables meet this naming spec. Columns, functions, operators, operator
> classes/families, collations, constraints, and conversions do not (you
> need more data to name them). Schemas, databases, languages, extensions,
> and some other things also do not, because you need *less* data to name
> them. Types also don't really meet this naming spec, because you need to
> contend with special cases like "int[]" or "timestamp with time zone".
> So this proposal doesn't seem very carefully thought-through to me,
> or at least the use case is much narrower than it could be.
>
> Also, if "object does not exist" isn't supposed to be an error case,
> what of "name is not correctly formatted"? It seems a bit arbitrary
> to me to throw an error in one case but not the other.
>

When I would to work with living object, then behave of cast to regclass is
correct, but I can work with object, that will be created in future, and I
need to take some other information about this future object - and then
cast has to fail.

Regards

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>