| From: | Justin Clift <jc(at)telstra(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns |
| Date: | 2004-07-02 02:50:45 |
| Message-ID: | 40E4CD85.1040000@telstra.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
<snip>
> If there is that much clamor for this, why not make a new schema,
> such as "pginformation_schema" People could then tweak the views
> to their heart's content, while keeping 100% compliance.
Doesn't sound very neat.
If we add a pginformation_schema, then it'd probably contain all of the
existing information_schema... plus more. Reduplication?
I guess we could just leverage off the existing information_schema views:
i.e.
CREATE VIEW pg_information_schmema.some_view AS SELECT * FROM
information_schema.some_view (then add extra bits).
But it still doesn't sound very neat.
?
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Rylander | 2004-07-02 02:55:26 | Re: Quick question regarding tablespaces |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2004-07-02 02:34:28 | Re: Bug with view definitions? |