Tom Lane escribió:
> Possibly we could allow '.' as long as we forbade /, but the other
> trouble with allowing . is that it encourages people to try to specify
> the filetype suffix (as indeed Oleg was doing). I'd prefer to keep the
> suffixes out of the SQL object definitions, with an eye to possibly
> someday migrating all the configuration data inside the database.
> There's a reasonable argument for restricting the names used for these
> things in the SQL definitions to be valid SQL identifiers, so that that
> will work nicely...
Well, if we were to use SQL identifiers, we couldn't forbade anything
too much, seeing as almost anything can be used as an identifier, so
long as it is properly quoted.
But it seems to me like we could just pick an convenient subset which
doesn't make any OS too angry about it (say, reject / \ . and :), and
when we get to using actual SQL identifiers, we can enlarge the
supported char set without creating any backwards-compatibility problem.
On the other hand, this means the name has to be quoted if it would be
quoted as an SQL identifier, right?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J
"Nunca confiaré en un traidor. Ni siquiera si el traidor lo he creado yo"
(Barón Vladimir Harkonnen)