Re: Re: Replace MSSQL by PostgreSQL ?

100(dot)179370(at)germanynet(dot)de (Martin Jacobs) writes:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might work to rename the type (eg, "update pg_type set typname =
>> 'pgname' where typname = 'name'). Haven't tried that to see what
>> sorts of problems it might have. Would definitely recommend doing
>> any experimentation of this sort in a scratch database ;-)

> I've done such experiment. It does not work, sorry for the
> noise. :-(

No? What goes wrong?

> I can understand Pruner, it's a bit disappointing to have
> 'name' as table name blocked by PG internals, and other rather
> natural table names too. Is there really no solution?

Once we implement schemas (hopefully Real Soon Now), I'd expect the
built-in type names to be part of the system schema, where they'd not
prevent you from creating new table + type names in your own schema.
Of course, you will still not like what happens after you create a
table named "text", say ... but as long as you're sufficiently careful
about qualifying table names and type names it seems like it should
work.

regards, tom lane