Re: creating index names automatically?
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-12-23T18:01:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > No, not really. Past the grammar there is no way to tell concurrently > from "concurrently", ie, if we did it like that then you couldn't even > use double quotes to get around it. Don't overthink this: either we > reserve the word or we don't put in the feature. Well still in the realm of overthinking.... Is there anything to be gained by having a class of reserved word which can be used for columns but not relations? I think most of the conflicts we worry about are with column names, not table names, and reserving names from use as index names isn't even a standards violation. -- greg