> I think this is a useful feature, also considering its presence in the
> SQL specification (IIRC, it's the only feature from the core subset of
> SQL-92 which we don't support), but I wouldn't call it really urgent
> (although I'd assign it a higher priority than longer-then-31-char
> identifiers-but-without-schemas :-).

I disagree!

"Longer-then-31-char identifiers-but-without-schemas" is an absolute priority.

Length of identifiers is an issue which is independent of the schemas.


Sean