| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Clark C(dot) Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Subject: | Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance |
| Date: | 2006-02-27 19:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | 21388.1141067823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, I agree with him on that. However, there's a certain amount of
> confusion inspired by the organization that: "If you want to look up the
> table's columns go to information_schmea, if you want the table *size*
> go to sysviews." But maybe that's unavoidable. Or maybe we could link
> the information_schema views into pg_sysviews?
We could, but I'd argue that this makes sense only if the added
PG-specific stuff looks like a seamless extension of the standard
definitions. If there are obvious differences in naming style, table
layout, etc, I'd expect such a setup to look more like a hodgepodge
than a good idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-02-27 19:20:55 | Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2006-02-27 19:07:21 | Re: [PATCHES] display and expression of the home directory in Win32 |