From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: tighten generic_option_name, or store more carefully in catalog?
In-reply-to: <6830EB30.8090904@acm.org>
References: <6830EB30.8090904@acm.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
	message dated "Fri, 23 May 2025 17:40:00 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3020889.1748735715.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 19:55:15 -0400
Message-ID: <3020890.1748735715@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3020890.1748735715%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org> writes:
> generic_option_name is a ColLabel, therefore a fully general SQL identifier.

> But a command like CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER w ... OPTIONS ("a=b" 'c=d')
> stores {a=b=c=d} in fdwoptions, from which the original intent can't be
> recovered.

Ugh.

> Should generic_option_name be restricted to be a regular identifier,
> or allowed to be a delimited identifier but with = forbidden within it,
> or should it be represented as delimited in the catalog when necessary
> so it can be recovered faithfully?

I think I'd vote for leaving the grammar alone and rejecting '='
in the option-storing code.  If memory serves, there's precedent
for that approach somewhere else in our code.

> SQL rules would also make its case-sensitivity dependent on faithfully
> recovering whether it was delimited or not.

I'm not following that part?

			regards, tom lane