From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Rob Wultsch" <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "Guillaume Lelarge" <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Bernd Helmle" <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: SHOW TABLES |
Date: | 2010-07-18 19:44:46 |
Message-ID: | 201007182144.47035.andres@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Kevin,
On Sunday 18 July 2010 21:24:25 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> > On 07/18/2010 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I am quite a bit surprised about all this discussion. I have a
> >> very hard time we will find anything people agree about and can
> >> remember well enough to be usefull for both manual and automatic
> >> processing.
> >>
> >> I agree that the internal pg_* tables are not exactly easy to
> >> query. And that the information_schema. ones arent complete
> >> enough and have enough concept mismatch to be confusing. But why
> >> all this?
> >
> > exactly my thoughts - but as I said earlier maybe this is actually
> > an opportunity to look at newsysviews again?
>
> I can't picture anything which could be done with views which would
> allow me to issue one statement and see everything of interest about
> a table (etc.). You know: tablespace, owner, permissions, columns,
> primary key, foreign keys, check constraints, exclusion constraints,
> ancestor tables, child tables, and whatever interesting features I
> missed or we later add. Other products allow that to be generated
> server-side, so that it is available to any and all clients. I
> think we should join the crowd in this respect.
Such tables sure do not fit queries as in
On Sunday 18 July 2010 20:39:07 Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> SHOW ANY TABLE
> GROUP BY tablename
> HAVING array_agg(attributes) @> array['date'::regtype, 'time'::regtype];
At least I dont see any way how you could define aggregation or such sensibly
here.
Thats the part which scares me quite a bit.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-07-18 21:16:05 | Re: SHOW TABLES |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-07-18 19:44:33 | Re: SHOW TABLES |