From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |
Date: | 2005-01-22 23:21:32 |
Message-ID: | 20050122232132.GS67721@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:36:54PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting renaming anything in any of the
> > existing pg_catalog objects. I'm suggesting creating a new, easier to
> > use set of views that would sit on top of pg_catalog.
>
> I have no objection to using easier to read names for the system views.
> (This is the user-friendly views, folks, not the actual system
> objects!). The reason I suggested the names I did was to be
> consistent.
Out of curiosity, what's the relation between the tables in pg_catalog
and the 'actual system objects'? I ass-u-me'd that these tables were the
backing store for the real information, but maybe that's not the case.
> Thing is, at least for the next version, if we are changing the naming
> conventions, we need to leave the old views alone, at least for one
> version (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.). This means a new view name scheme
> for the new views. Suggestions?
If we're dropping the pg_, maybe call the new schema just 'catalog'?
> I might suggest simply "tables" "triggers" "types" etc. The plurals
> of these reserved words are no, AFAIK, reserved. And if users are
> creating identically named objects in public, they just need to
> remember to use the schema.
Actually, the view names don't bother me at all. Granted, pg_ is 3 extra
characters to type, but the names are crystal clear. What I don't like
are the field names inside the views, and especially inside the
pg_catalog tables.
> Oh, also for the "Parameters (array)" etc.? I was planning on having
> text names there, *not* an array of OIDs or whatever. The purpose of
> these views is to be user-friendly.
I think these views are also very useful in certain programming
situations, in which also having the OIDs might be very useful. Another
option would be to have functions that given a array of names would
return a array of OIDs.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-01-22 23:42:58 | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |
Previous Message | lsunley | 2005-01-22 22:35:45 | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |