On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > No, not really. Past the grammar there is no way to tell concurrently > from "concurrently", ie, if we did it like that then you couldn't even > use double quotes to get around it. Don't overthink this: either we > reserve the word or we don't put in the feature.
Well still in the realm of overthinking.... Is there anything to be gained by having a class of reserved word which can be used for columns but not relations? I think most of the conflicts we worry about are with column names, not table names, and reserving names from use as index names isn't even a standards violation. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
