Feedback-ID: i76984098:Fastmail
Message-ID: <e70653cd-0bb2-4861-8664-7fc8243846b7@aklaver.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 12:33:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Column name beginning with underscore ("_")?
To: Jim Rosenberg <jr@amanue.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
References: <20241104150203.f808f1e63e67dddcd3204d29@amanue.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
In-Reply-To: <20241104150203.f808f1e63e67dddcd3204d29@amanue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e70653cd-0bb2-4861-8664-7fc8243846b7%40aklaver.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 11/4/24 12:02, Jim Rosenberg wrote:
> Is it considered bad Postgresql practice to have a column name that begins
> with the underscore character ("_")?
> 
> I'm not sure where this is documented, but I'm seeing that Postgresql
> accepts prepending an underscore to a data type name as a kind of alias for
> appending [] to define an array data type. So even though Postgresql
> doesn't seem to have this problem, a human reader might confuse a column
> name beginning with _ as an array data type reference.
> 
> Here is why I want to have some column names beginning with "_". I'm
> designing a database to shadow a public agency's data. I need some columns
> that reflect *my* shadow copy of the data, (like say download date) that
> don't have any semantic import with respect to the original data.
> Beginning such columns with "_" is a simple way to keep the column names
> uncluttered but indicate to the reader that the column applies to *my
> copy* but are not columns in the original data.

To reduce confusion something like?:

my_* or l(ocal)_*


> 
> Comments?
> 
> 

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com