On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It doesn't sound like a good solution to me, because there can be SQL
>> code inside stored procedures that clients never see.
>
> In our code
On 25/02/17 09:02, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/24/17 12:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think these are straw-man arguments, really. Consider the actual use
case for such a feature: it's for porting some application that was not
On 2/24/17 12:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think these are straw-man arguments, really. Consider the actual use
case for such a feature: it's for porting some application that was not
written against Postgres to begin with.
On 2/24/17 11:34 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
SELECT SomeCol, OtherCol, FooCol, BarCol, MyCol, ExtraCol, LastCol
INTO _SomeCol, _OtherCol, _FooCol, _BarCol, _MyCol, _ExtraCol, _LastCol
FROM Foo
WHERE Bar = 'Baz';
This is to avoid typos that are then visually easy to spot, thanks to
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> It doesn't sound like a good solution to me, because there can be SQL
> code inside stored procedures that clients never see.
In our code base, we use CamelCase in all PL/pgSQL functions, both for
columns and
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think these are straw-man arguments, really. Consider the actual use
> case for such a feature: it's for porting some application that was not
> written against Postgres to begin with.
I'm not sure that's totally true. I
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The versions of autocommit that have actually stood the test of time were
>>> implemented on the
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The versions of autocommit that have actually stood the test of time were
>> implemented on the client side (in psql and JDBC, and I think ODBC as
>>
On 2/20/17 3:30 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
Also, I think the --lowercase-uniqueness feature would be useful by
itself even without the --case-preserving feature,
since that might be a good way to enforce a good design of new databases,
as a mix of "users" and "Users" is probably considered ugly by
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The versions of autocommit that have actually stood the test of time were
> implemented on the client side (in psql and JDBC, and I think ODBC as
> well), where the scope of affected code was lots smaller. I wonder
> whether
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Even if the project decided that "Users" and users is stupid and that we
> should deprecate it, I think the odds of also deciding to tell existing
> users to re-write their apps are zero.
But if the feature can't be
Joel Jacobson writes:
> I think a good general philosophy for the PostgreSQL project would be to
> try to look at how to meed the needs for new users of new projects
> in a way that don't impair things for existing users,
Yeah, exactly, and the problem here is that claiming
On 2/19/17 4:51 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
But once you've already
decided to have a hard-and-fast rule that the names must be unique
after lower-casing, there's no obvious benefit to rejecting queries
that mention the same name with different case.
Exactly, that trade-off is necessary, otherwise
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> When case preservation by default is on, then simply enforce
>> UNIQUE(LOWER(object_name)), to prevent ambiguity.
>
> That (1) breaks backward compatibility, because people might have
> objects with names identical
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> The short answer is that nobody can see a way to modify the identifier
>> case-folding rules that isn't going to add more pain than it subtracts.
>> And much of the added pain will be felt by people who aren't getting
>>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Have you read any of our innumerable previous discussions about this?
No, sorry, didn't see them, thanks for sharing the links.
> The short answer is that nobody can see a way to modify the identifier
> case-folding rules
Joel Jacobson writes:
> Case Preservation + Case Insensitivity = A good combination
> Thoughts?
Have you read any of our innumerable previous discussions about this?
The last one was barely a month ago, cf
17 matches
Mail list logo