Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > What I'm basically objecting to is the pseudo-reservedness. If we > don't want to dodge that with special syntax, we should dodge it > by making sure the keywords are actually reserved names. In other > words, add a "pg_" prefix, as somebody else suggested upthread.
Yes, that was my suggestion, and it was also my change a few major versions ago that actually reserved the "pg_" prefix for roles. > BTW, although that solution works for the immediate need of > keywords that have to be distinguished from role names, it doesn't > currently scale to keywords for the database column, because we > don't treat "pg_" as a reserved prefix for database names: > > regression=# create role pg_zit; > ERROR: role name "pg_zit" is reserved > DETAIL: Role names starting with "pg_" are reserved. > regression=# create database pg_zit; > CREATE DATABASE > > Should we do so, or wait till there's an immediate need to? I seem to recall (but it was years ago, so I might be wrong) advocating that we should reserve the 'pg_' prefix for *all* object types. All I can recall is that there wasn't much backing for the idea (though I also don't recall any specific objection, and it's also quite possible that there was simply no response to the idea). For my 2c, I'd *much* rather we reserve it across the board, and sooner than later, since that would hopefully reduce the impact on people. The only justification for *not* reserving it is if we KNOW that we'll never need a special one of those, but, well, we're well past that for database names already- look at the fact that we've got a "replication" one, for example. Maybe we can't ever un-reserve that, but I like the idea of reserving "pg_" for database names and then having "pg_replication" be allowed to mean replication connections and then encouraging users to use that instead. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
