From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joerg Hessdoerfer <Joerg(dot)Hessdoerfer(at)sea-gmbh(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: \d type queries - why not views in system catalog?!? |
Date: | 2003-01-13 16:19:46 |
Message-ID: | 25643.1042474786@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joerg Hessdoerfer <Joerg(dot)Hessdoerfer(at)sea-gmbh(dot)com> writes:
> PG has *some* views in the system catalog, which make life easier, but
> some essential(?) things like 'list all tables in DB' has to be done
> in a multi-table join with special attributes. What is the rationale
> of that? Wouldn't it be easier (and more portable, see 7.3/7.2 system
> catalogs vs. psql) to have views for that?
Only to the extent that the views match what a particular front-end
actually wants to see.
Peter Eisentraut is currently working on adding the SQL-spec-mandated
"INFORMATION_SCHEMA" views; so as long as all you want to know is what's
in the spec, those should be your answer. But I do not foresee psql or
pg_dump ever switching over to INFORMATION_SCHEMA, because they want to
know about some things that are Postgres-specific.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | greg | 2003-01-13 16:28:06 | Re: \d type queries - why not views in system catalog?!? |
Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2003-01-13 16:01:08 | Re: PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up? |