Hi Tim,Yes, if quoting is legal, then my preferred solution is that quoting reserved word names should be the default treatment.
Craig On May 8, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone recalls the rationale for making table and/or column names valid by appending number(s) to the end of the name (i.e., DATE --> DATE0, TIME--> TIME1) ?? I ask for a number of reasons. Primarily I'm just trying to understand, but many of the SLQ92 reserved words/keys in the sql-keywords.rscs file can be, and are used, as valid column names. For example, NAME, VALUE, and NUMBER are SQL92 reserved keywords, but they're frequently used as valid column names without being converted to NAME0, VALUE0, or NUMBER0.So, this mechanism for creating valid column names by appending numbers when reserved keywords are involved doesn't seem to be uniformly applied, or at least it's not obvious to me. Finally, many of the major database products (e.g., DB2, Oracle) support the usage of reserved keywords if they are explicitly enclosed in double quotes (e.g., "TIMESTAMP", "DATE", "TIME"). I wonder if it might be more intuitive and less problematic to utilize this technique when the database supports it ??-- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
