Hi Tom,
You are right. Those naming conventions are old and that is why we have to improve those where ever and when ever required. If no one has objection, I will give a try to improve this part. I believe these naming conventions will be at two levels: 1. Internal code of PostgreSQL , structures getting used internally 2. SQL/C functions get executed at the time of database initialization to create default objects and system catalogs. I will see how much modifications/efforts need to be done and will come back again if it is feasible. My intension is to improve naming conventions and increase naming string where naming conventions are correct but make shorten. Suggestions and feedbacks are welcome. Regards, Sachin Kotwal On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Sachin Kotwal <kotsac...@gmail.com> writes: > > I can understand that it is important to maintain naming pattern same as > > system catalogs, but in that case we may need to redefine system catalogs > > naming conventions . > > Those naming conventions are twenty-five years old, and there is an > astonishing amount of client code that would break if we ran around > changing existing system catalog column names. It's very unlikely that > any proposal to do that would even receive serious consideration. > > The bar to using new naming conventions in new catalogs would be > lower, of course, but then you have to think about the confusion > factor of having different naming styles in different places. > > regards, tom lane > -- Thanks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal
