Tom,
Unfortunately, they almost certainly don't. I'd bet long odds that
what they expect is mysql's traditional behavior,
Nope. They're looking for Oracle, which is spec-complaint since they
wrote that spec.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
"Tino Wildenhain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole stuff as I understand is to fix the behavior with applications
> creating objects without quotes and accessing them "QUOTEDUPPERCASE"?
>
> Would a small script fixing the schema by using rename not fix this for
> many applications?
Well th
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
...
4. Compare the "name" data type in a case-insensitive manner. This would
probably address most problem cases. Again, you can't have objects with names
different in case only. One condition to implementing this would be that this
behavior would have be tied do
Am Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008 schrieb Gregory Stark:
> "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One disadvantage is that one could no longer have objects that have names
> > different only by case, but that is probably rare and incredibly stupid
> > and can be neglected.
>
> Certainly not if
On Wednesday 09 July 2008 00:35:07 Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Joseph Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right. From a user's perspective 4) sounds best. I often run into problems
> > having keywords as column-names:
>
> None of the proposals on the table will remove the need to use quotes in
>
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm not sure if you've read all the archive history on this. Here are
> the pointers from the TODO list:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-04/msg00818.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-10/msg01527.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org
"Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One disadvantage is that one could no longer have objects that have names
> different only by case, but that is probably rare and incredibly stupid and
> can be neglected.
Certainly not if you hope to claim being within a mile of spec -- which seem
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I have had some idle thoughts on the issue of identifier case folding. Maybe
we can collect our ideas and inch closer to a solution sometime. Or we
determine that it's useless and impossible, but then I can at least collect
that result in the wiki and point future us
Andreas Joseph Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. From a user's perspective 4) sounds best. I often run into problems
> having keywords as column-names:
None of the proposals on the table will remove the need to use quotes in
that case.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, there are a number of *very* popular database tools,
>> particularly
>> in the Java world (such as Netbeans and BIRT) which do mix quoted and
>> unquoted identifiers.
> Do these tools expect an unqu
>>> Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for a compile-time option for spec-compliant behavior. Even
> where the spec is stupid (timestamp with time zone literals) it'd
> be nice to have the option; both for feature completeness
> checklists and for teachers who want to teach targeting th
Tom Lane wrote:
What I think would perhaps be worth investigating is a compile-time
(or at latest initdb-time) option that flips the case folding behavior
to SQL-spec-compliant and also changes all the built-in catalog entries
to upper case. We would then have a solution we could offer to people
>>> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, there are a number of *very* popular database tools,
particularly
> in the Java world (such as Netbeans and BIRT) which do mix quoted and
> unquoted identifiers. In general, users of those tools reject
PostgreSQL
> as "broken" for our non
On Tuesday 08 July 2008 23:04:51 Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > IMHO, practically the only solid argument for changing from the way
> > we do things now is "to meet the letter of the spec". The various sorts
> > of gamesmanship you list would most definitely not meet the letter of
> > the spec;
Tom,
> IMHO, practically the only solid argument for changing from the way
> we do things now is "to meet the letter of the spec". The various sorts
> of gamesmanship you list would most definitely not meet the letter of
> the spec; between that and the inevitability of breaking some apps,
> I'm
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 8. Juli 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> IMHO, practically the only solid argument for changing from the way
>> we do things now is "to meet the letter of the spec".
> Well no. As I have mentioned, there have actually been occasional complaints
Am Dienstag, 8. Juli 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> IMHO, practically the only solid argument for changing from the way
> we do things now is "to meet the letter of the spec".
Well no. As I have mentioned, there have actually been occasional complaints
by people who can't run their code generated by c
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have had some idle thoughts on the issue of identifier case folding.
> ...
> Comments?
IMHO, practically the only solid argument for changing from the way
we do things now is "to meet the letter of the spec". The various sorts
of gamesmanship you l
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 19:25 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 4. Compare the "name" data type in a case-insensitive manner. This
> would probably address most problem cases. Again, you can't have
> objects with names
> different in case only. One condition to implementing this would be
> that t
I have had some idle thoughts on the issue of identifier case folding. Maybe
we can collect our ideas and inch closer to a solution sometime. Or we
determine that it's useless and impossible, but then I can at least collect
that result in the wiki and point future users to it.
Background: Pos
20 matches
Mail list logo