> > Martijn, please stop and think for a moment. You aren't screwed. There
> > is no incompatibility -- you can still refer to you table with the
> > embedded dot form and it will still work. There is no problem there at
> > all. The problem, if it is a problem, is that the following sequence
> > *does* fail:
> >
> > create table "hungry"."wolf" (n int);
> > create table "hungry.wolf" (n int);

Still, I wouldn't expect "hungry.wolf" to end up in "hungry", or HUNGRY,
for that matter.

IMO, use quotes (if any) around each part of the name.

"catalog"."schema"."object".

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com

> > But it fails cleanly at DDL time so there can't be any actual ambiguity
> > problems. So if the only cost of the compromise is that a user is
> > prevented from defining a table "wolf" in the schema "hungry" *and* an
> > unqualified table "hungry.wolf", then the compromise is a bargain

indeed.

>
> And both are in the schema - hungry - not HUNGRY which
> create table hungry."wolf" (n int);
> would produce?
>
> (I am currently battling with this in PHP cross database scripts with
> the case of the alias :) )