Tom Lane wrote:

>Personally I don't think that this is a "transitional issue" and we will
>someday all be happy in upper-case-only-land.  Upper-case-only sucks,
>by every known measure of readability, and I don't want to have to put up
>with a database that forces that 1960s-vintage-hardware mindset on me.

I think the SQL standard is screwy here on at least two levels.  
Not only is upper case fuggly (we all seem to agree on that 
point), but I think case folding is a Bad Idea in general.  I 
think the only time you should have to quote a DB identifier is 
when it conflicts with a reserved word.  Either be case sensative 
or don't.  I'm all for the (ignore but preserve case) way of doing things.

But it IS the standard, and as such, as much as we all seem to 
dislike it, I believe it is better to follow it.  You can't just 
go around picking and choosing the standards you'll adhere to.  
Like Microsoft.  If it bothers you that much, put some effort 
into changing it.  Attain world domination and then force the 
world to bend to The Right Way.  Get rich and pay off enough 
members of the standards body to get it changed.  But until then, 
live with it.

Now, I am all for configurability, and lots of it.  By all means, 
allow us to choose how we'd like case folding to be carried out, 
or whether case folding (blech) is done at all.  While you're at 
it, allow us to choose whether NULL is  treated as 
zero/blank/empty or as SQL standard NULL.  Allow us to force the 
DB to do case-insensative comparisons on all character data.  
Allow us, as DB admins, to f*** with the standard behavior until 
we have a working mimic of MySQL or MS-SQL :-)

But I think the default behavior should adhere to the SQL 
standard as closely as possible, even when we all hate it with a passion.

Just my $.02
Glen Parker


Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:30:07 -0700
"Glen Parker" <glenebob@nwlink.com>
FW: Do we prefer software that works or software that looks good?