david.g.johnston@gmail.com wrote:
As for "schema identifiers" vs. "schema names" - they both seem equally wrong. The list can very much contain sequences of characters that when interpreted as an identifier and looked for in the pg_namespace catalog do not find a matching entry and are therefore by definition not the name of any known schema in that database.
Besides, I hazard to guess how many times we write "table name" and "column name" in the documentation when your argument is that "table identifier" and "column identifier" is the correct choice. No, rather "name" and "identifier" in the context of database objects are known to mean the same thing - the alphabetic name of the object.
Well, "putative" or "candidate" can be used to resolve your existence criterion. But why bother? In my book, Bertie Wooster (or Bertram Wilberforce Wooster if you prefer) is a perfectly fine candidate name in the general English speaking culture. It's neither here nor there if there happens to be any living person who has the name...
But never mind. If you'd like a diverting read on this topic, go here:
https://blogs.oracle.com/sql/post/a-collection-of-plsql-essayslook for this, and download the PDF:
«
Names vs identifiers
Databases are full of things: tables, sequences, columns, views, PL/SQL units, what have you. Things have names and are manipulated by mentioning the names. The programming languages SQL and PL/SQL use identifiers, not names. Questions show many programmers are confused about the difference. This note describes the relationships between things, names, and identifiers. Once the programming rules are absorbed, developers can write code faster and with less heartburn.
»
It's written by a former colleague with whom I spent many happy hours discussing the topic.
Over and out?