From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |
Date: | 2005-05-05 05:01:47 |
Message-ID: | 200505042201.47978.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> To put it more bluntly: exactly what are you accomplishing here that
> isn't already accomplished, in a *truly* standard fashion, by the
> INFORMATION_SCHEMA? Why do we need yet another nonstandard view on
> the underlying reality?
To quote myself:
Q: Why not just use information_schema?
A: Because the columns and layout of information_schema is strictly defined by
the SQL standard. This prevents it from covering all PostgreSQL objects, or
from covering the existing objects adequately to replicate a CREATE
statement. As examples, there is no "types" table in information_schema, and
the "constraints" table assumes that constraint names are universally unique
instead of table-unique as they are in PG.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Allen | 2005-05-05 05:03:49 | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-05 04:56:13 | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |