From: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | the6campbells <the6campbells(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo resultset returns more than just Postgres/user defined data types |
Date: | 2012-10-02 14:31:56 |
Message-ID: | 506AFADC.3040405@ringerc.id.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 09/24/2012 11:12 PM, the6campbells wrote:
> The result set returned from DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo contains many
> rows for instance it returns entries for tables and views in schemas.
Everything is in a schema; if you don't specify a schema you just get
the schema "public" by default.
> This seems inconsistent with the 'spirit' of what this method is
> intended to facilitiate.
It lists all the types. Seems sensible to me. If you want to filter by
schema, you filter by schema.
Should types in pg_catalog.* be hidden? If so, what if an extension adds
new types? Should they be listed? What if the *same* extension is
instead installed into the public schema - should its types be visible,
or hidden? What about a type created in `pg_temp`?
It's just too messy with an extensible database like PostgreSQL. Without
a very strong justification based on the JDBC spec for excluding system
types (and how would we even define "system type"?) I'm strongly against
changing the current behaviour.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2012-10-03 02:27:57 | JDBC change log needs updating for Version 9.2-1000 |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-10-02 14:26:57 | Re: ResultSet metadata for a prepared statement missing the applicable table, schema etc properties |