Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2
Date: 2005-01-23 20:16:31
Message-ID: 200501231216.31607.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom,

> Any new schemas introduced by PG itself will be named pg_something.
> This is not open to negotiation --- it's what we've promised to users
> to avoid tromping on their schema namespace.

I can see the sense in that. So, there's four ways I can see to do things:

1) leave the existing views (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.) the way they are
except for adding columns. Create new views based on the naming scheme of
the old.

2) create new views in pg_catalog, using new names. The problem with this is
that the most intuitive names (pg_tables, pg_views) are taken by the old
views and I'm not sure what to name the new ones.

3) create a new schema with the system views in it, called for example
pg_system_views. This seems cluttered to me; a whole new schema just for a
dozen views?

4) ignore backwards compatibility and just re-write the old views. I can
hear the shouting already ...

So, a choice of annoying options. Does anyone else on the channel have
opinions?

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2005-01-23 20:32:17 Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-01-23 20:14:04 Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED