X-Original-To: pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642C5D1B98D for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:47:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37158-08 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:47:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A284D1B8B7 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:47:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3O5l7nD008161; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:47:08 -0400 (EDT) To: Dennis Bjorklund Cc: Stephan Szabo , Shachar Shemesh , Robert Treat , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development , PostgreSQL advocacy Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What can we learn from MySQL? In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Dennis Bjorklund message dated "Sat, 24 Apr 2004 06:38:58 +0200" Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:47:07 -0400 Message-ID: <8160.1082785627@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200404/177 X-Sequence-Number: 4149 Dennis Bjorklund writes: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote: >> So what I'm holding out for is a design that lets me continue to see the >> current behavior if I set a GUC variable that says that's what I want. > Wouldn't the upper case identifiers just be visible in the \d output, > table headers and such. Exactly ... and that's where my readability complaint starts ... > First I thought that one can store the string with case all the time, and > just convert when needed (when comparing identifiers). People keep suggesting these random not-quite-standard behaviors, but I fail to see the point. Are you arguing for exact standards compliance, or not? If you're not, then you have to make your case on the claim that "my nonstandard behavior is better than the existing nonstandard behavior". Which might be true, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but I doubt you can prove it to the extent of overriding the backwards-compatibility issue. regards, tom lane