Re: Improving inferred query column names

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:08 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On 11.02.23 20:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > I think on a green field it'd be clearly better to do something like the
> > above. What does give me pause is that it seems quite likely to break
> > existing queries, and to a lesser degree, might break applications
> relying on
> > inferred column names
> >
> > Can anybody think of a good way out of that? It's not like that problem
> is
> > going to go away at some point...
>
> I think we should just do it and not care about what breaks. There has
> never been any guarantee about these.
>
>
I'm going to toss a -1 into the ring but if this does go through a strong
request that it be disabled via a GUC. The ugliness of that option is why
we shouldn't do this.

Defacto reality is still a reality we are on the hook for.

I too find the legacy design choice to be annoying but not so much that
changing it seems like a good idea.

David J.