Sorry, my last mail wasn't well thought out. Yes, the information_schema needs the case-folded name (although it might be ok to add additional columns to the information_schema for extra information).
But, stepping back from all that, what is it the users want? 1) When re-creating a CREATE TABLE statement from whatever catalog info, they'd like the names to come back exactly as then entered them. If I do: CREATE TABLE BobsTable (WeeklySales numeric(10,2), "SomeStrangeName" int); They'd like to see exactly that when the CREATE TABLE gets re-created, not what we do now: CREATE TABLE bobstable (weeklysales numeric(10,2), "SomeStrangeName" int); 2) When doing reports, they'd like the name as entered to be the title of the column: Select * from bobstable; Would be nice if they saw this: WeeklySales SomeStrangeName ----------- --------------- For compatibility with existing apps and spec compliance, you'd still want PQfname() to return the case-folded name. But there isn't any reason you couldn't also return a "suggested title" field (PQftitle?) which preserves the user's case. You could also extend the concept of a PQftitle to make nicer titles for expressions. Instead of SELECT sum(WeeklySales) from BobsTable; Producing "?column?" or somesuch to use in the report, it could return a title like "sum(WeeklySales)" -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:38 PM To: Chuck McDevitt Cc: Stephan Szabo; beau hargis; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] Case Preservation disregarding case "Chuck McDevitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Equivalent, yes. But I can interpret that clause it mean I can show > either the case folded or non-case-folded value in the information > schema, as they are equivalent. Well, that's an interesting bit of specs-lawyering, but I don't see how you can defend it against these rules in SQL99 5.2: 21) For every <identifier body> IB there is exactly one corresponding case-normal form CNF. CNF is an <identifier body> derived from IB as follows. Let n be the number of characters in IB. For i ranging from 1 (one) to n, the i-th character M(i) of IB is translated into the corresponding character or characters of CNF as follows. Case: a) If M(i) is a lower case character or a title case character for which an equivalent upper case sequence U is defined by Unicode, then let j be the number of characters in U; the next j characters of CNF are U. b) Otherwise, the next character of CNF is M(i). 22) The case-normal form of the <identifier body> of a <regular identifier> is used for purposes such as and including determination of identifier equivalence, representation in the Definition and Information Schemas, and representation in diagnostics areas. NOTE 44 - Any lower-case letters for which there are no upper- case equivalents are left in their lower-case form. Again, obviously we are not compliant because we fold to lower rather than upper case, but I do not see how you can read (22) as not requiring the information schema to show the upper-cased form. The output of functions such as PQfname() might be considered closer to diagnostics info than information schema, but that's covered too. But the really serious problem with what you propose is that it would allow two table columns with names that the system considers distinct to show as the same string in the information schema and diagnostic outputs. That can't be acceptable --- it's going to break any application that does any nontrivial analysis of what it sees there, not to mention that it violates various primary key constraints in the information schema specification. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate