From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)oli(dot)tudelft(dot)nl> |
Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Renaming schema's [SOLVED] |
Date: | 2002-12-02 14:48:06 |
Message-ID: | 18241.1038840486@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)oli(dot)tudelft(dot)nl> writes:
> I asked on the pgadmin-support list and Dave Page answered:
> <quote>
> pgAdmin hides system objects by default, but in the case of the public
> schema it makes an exception bcause hiding public would not be sensible.
> It does it by a combination of name and OID: the oid is less than the
> last system oid, so it is hidden, except if it is called public.
Hm. Might I suggest that a better policy (as of 7.3) would be:
1. Schemas (pg_namespace entries) are considered system objects if and
only if their names begin with 'pg_'.
2. For all object types that exist within schemas, it's a system object
if and only if it's within a system schema.
We really want to move away from using OID-range tests for anything...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-02 15:01:21 | Re: The old "not using index" question |
Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2002-12-02 14:10:23 | Re: German newspaper with PostgreSQL |