Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> These don't seem to me like names that we ought to be
>> exposing at the SQL command level. Why not just "schema", "table",
>> "column"? Or perhaps "schema_name", "table_name", "column_name" if you
>> feel it's essential to distinguish that these are names.
> I think not-shortened names (words used in documents of conversations)
> are better now. I prefer "table_name" to "table", because it would be
> easy to distinguish as name, even if we add new options like
> "table_foo".
Yeah. I doubt that these options will be commonly used anyway ---
surely it's easier and less confusing to choose names that match the
remote table in the first place. So there's no very good reason to
keep the option names short.
I'll go with "schema_name", "table_name", "column_name" unless someone
comes along with a contrary opinion.
> In psql \d+ result for postgres_fdw foreign tables, "table" and
> "column" are quoted, but "schema" is not. Is this behavior of
> quote_ident() intentional?
That's probably a consequence of these being keywords of different
levels of reserved-ness. If we go with the longer names it won't
happen.
regards, tom lane
