> I have just thought of a possible compromise. Peter is right that we
> don't want case conversion on table names that are extracted from
> catalogs. But I think we do want it on table names expressed as string
> literals. Could we make the assumption that table names in catalogs
> will be of type 'name'? If so, it'd work to make two versions of the
> has_table_privilege function, one taking type "name" and the other
> taking type "text". The "name" version would take its input as-is,
> the "text" version would do case folding and truncation. This would
> work transparently for queries selecting relation names from the system
> catalogs, and it'd also work transparently for queries using unmarked
> string literals (which will be preferentially resolved as type "text").
> Worst case if the system makes the wrong choice is you throw in an
> explicit coercion to name or text. Comments?
Seems you are adding a distinction between name and text that we never
had before. Is it worth it to fix this case?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
