Re: Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> interface designers who are designing for 3rd-party multi-database
> products who are not supporting PostgreSQL yet and will be
> unlikely to learn the system tables

There's a scary thought.

So they are willing to learn the new system views, but not the system
tables? The above seems an argument for I_S, or at least an expanded I_S.

So... the reason we don't want to expand (not alter) I_S is that it is a
"standard" that very few RDBMS actually bother to implement, is already
out of date, and is incomplete? Seems we bend the rules in other ways when
needed (e.g. lowercase relation names), we could certainly add additional
tables and columns here, while maintaining the "standard" set for applications
looking for them.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200505100635
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCgI6UvJuQZxSWSsgRAsp3AJ9aY8qeVzpKTcq5yXkhmtkJvuFRWACfXPST
TNNRK32VwbaHimNhB9hjWb8=
=Saja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----