> > Forgott to say that I try to create a table named
> > <QUOTE>user</QUOTE>.
> >
> > > Why is this so very commonly used word reserved?
> > > Is that some kind of #define so you easily can recompile
> > > PostgreSQL? If so, please guide me to the place. This is
> > > truly annoying.
>
> Rather than trying to tear apart a database system that was carefully
> designed with "user" as a word with meaning to the system, is there any
> reason why you can't use a slightly different name for your table? I
tried
> the same thing once, by the way, and when I realized I couldn't name my
> table "user", I called it "users" - after all, there will be more than one
> user! :-) Other ideas are "usr", "db_user" (replace "db" with something
> meaningful to you), "user_info", etc.
>
> Just a thought.
What I just can't understand is that I want to create a _table_ named
"user", and I can't do that because there is
a _function_ named exactly that. Why I care is becuase I'm kind of a
perfectionist. I want the database to match the UML class diagram.
Anyway I called it "uzer" now. Maybe usr is better... users is out of the
question since table names are supposed to go in singularis.
Thanks for the input though, all of you :)
Daniel Åkerud