Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql
Date: 2000-01-31 15:29:07
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001311625250.12762-100000@Hund.DoCS.UU.SE (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
> > This is not a bogosity if you read and understand the psql grammar.
> In other words, you have (by fiat and with no discussion AFAIR) decided
> to change psql's "grammar" so that its handling of names is inconsistent
> with the backend's.  That might be OK if psql were an independent
> product, but it's not.  There are already enough discrepancies between
> parsing of backslash commands and parsing of SQL commands; do we need
> to add more?

I have written so many requests for comments on psql, I don't know. This
handling of names was nowhere documented, so I couldn't have known it. On
the other hand, the current behaviour is documented and consistent with
something at least. I totally see what you're saying and I'm going to try
to address it. But there was noone who said anything about this so far.

Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net                   75262 Uppsala            Sweden

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-01-31 15:30:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-01-31 15:26:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group