<p><br /> On Feb 2, 2012 5:34 PM, "Tom Lane" <<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>> wrote:<br
/>><br /> > [ adjusting thread title to have something to do with reality ]<br /> ><br /> > Alvaro Herrera
<<ahref="mailto:alvherre@commandprompt.com">alvherre@commandprompt.com</a>> writes:<br /> > > Excerpts from
RobertHaas's message of jue feb 02 11:39:29 -0300 2012:<br /> > >> We have lots of things that are
case-sensitive;I don't particularly<br /> > >> see why this one should be different.<br /> ><br /> >
>Err, postgresql.conf processing is case insensitive, which is the most<br /> > > closely related example.
Areyou saying we should make that case<br /> > > sensitive as well? What I'm saying is that I see no good
reasonfor<br /> > > keyword comparison to be case sensitive here. We don't compare case on<br /> > > SQL
keywordseither.<br /> ><br /> > One thing I'm concerned about is that there are places in pg_hba.conf<br /> >
wherea token might be either a keyword or a user/group/database name.<br /> > If you start recognizing keywords
case-insensitively,you could break<br /> > files that used to work, ie what was meant to be a name will now be<br />
>read as a keyword. Admittedly, the odds of that are not very large, but<br /> > they're not zero either. Given
theentire lack of complaints about this<br /> > from the field, I'm inclined to think it's better to leave well
enough<br/> > alone. We could add a documentation note if you feel a need for that.<br /><p>+1. I don't think I've
hearda single complaint about this ever... <p>/Magnus <br />
