"Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>> Now you've lost me - how is a user-inputted object name translatable?
> Not all languages use "..." as quote symbols, but if you make them part of
> some string that comes from the backend, it becomes prohibitively hard to
> translate it correctly.
Hm. This gets back to the point we've discussed before: there is some
confusion between SQL's use of quoted identifiers and the customary
English use of quote marks to set off text that should be distinguished
from the surrounding sentence.
Essentially, Bruce's proposed patch moves the use of quotes in \d table
headers to conform to SQL's "technical" use of quotes, while you are
arguing for sticking with the message style guidelines' "human-oriented"
use of quotes.
I can see merit in both positions. But I also see merit in the
compromise position of not using quotes at all. I don't see a strong
need to demarcate table name from surrounding text in a context as
simple as this --- is
really any easier to read than
? And Peter is correct that the former introduces translation issues
when you think about languages that don't customarily use "..." as
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match