From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments |
Date: | 2005-05-10 17:30:07 |
Message-ID: | 4280EF9F.9080402@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> ... thus, as I see it, the *primary* question is in fact argument (2). That
> is, is information_schema sufficient, and if not, can it be extended without
> breaking SQL standards? Argument (1) did not seem to have a lot of evidence
> on the "con" side, and the strongest argument against (3) is that we should
> use information_schema.
(2) The information_schema is good but not sufficient. It either needs
more info as suggested by this thread or we need an extended version for
Pg specifically.
(1) I can't see anyone in their right mind on the user space / support
of users side arguing against the need for more information about
PostgreSQL and the way it interacts.
(3) If we can use the information_schema let's do so. However it should
not be a stopping block.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt. Inc.
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-05-10 17:36:39 | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-10 17:21:06 | Re: Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments |