| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: pg_index.indislossy |
| Date: | 2001-05-15 10:10:22 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633682C7@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> One problem with keeping it is that interface coders are getting
> confused by some of the unused system table columns, assuming they mean
> something, when in fact they don't. Both ODBC and JDBC have had this
> problem that I fixed today.
Imho the correct answer to this would be to implement the SQL standard
system views, and make all interfaces use those.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-05-15 10:36:53 | Re: pg_index.isclustered can work |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-05-15 10:07:32 | AW: pg_index.indislossy |