On R, 2004-07-02 at 05:07, Justin Clift wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting
> >> yourself to a standard. The real question is whether PostgreSQL's
> >> goal is to support SQL standards, or whether PostgreSQL's goal is to
> >> give PostgreSQL users a useful set of tools.
> >
> >
> > There are literally _hundreds_ of fields we could add to the
> > information_schema. Either we add them all or we add none of them.
>
> Well, if we add them (and they would be very useful I reckon) should we
> ensure there's an obvious PG naming thing happening?
>
> i.e. pg_column_comment
>
> or similar? Maybe not "pg_" but you know what I mean.
IIRC we were recently told (in this thread) that the SQL standard tells
to end local customisations with underscore, so it would be
'column_comment_'
---------------
Hannu