| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |