On 6 July 2016 at 21:01, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> This is something that has been bothering me for a long time. HHH-6328[1]
> is a specific example. Basically we are very inconsistent in how we
> attempt to match up table and column names, especially when there are
> naming strategies involved.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:58 AM andrea boriero wrote:
> On 6 July 2016 at 21:01, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>>
>> One option is that they need to match exactly (maybe with some simple
>> handling of quoted versus case-insensitive, similar to Identifier#equals
>> leveraging Identifier#getCanonicalNam
On 7 July 2016 at 15:43, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:58 AM andrea boriero
> wrote:
>
>> On 6 July 2016 at 21:01, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One option is that they need to match exactly (maybe with some simple
>>> handling of quoted versus case-insensitive, similar to
>
> Personally, I think using straight String comparisons is the main
>> problem. If you look at the code for Identifier#equals that is really
>> exactly what we need already.
>>
>> We cannot just drop the quotes for an accurate comparison. "`MY_TABLE`"
>> and "`my_table`" are different tables to
