From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |
Date: | 2005-05-06 04:13:14 |
Message-ID: | 9910.1115352794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:
> On 2005-05-06, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 May 2005 19:17, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>>> furthermore, writing the views has often required
>>> delving into details of the backend implementation that are not well
>>> documented. (See a recent discussion here on typmods for an example.)
>>
>> This argument at least is a red herring.
> I disagree. If you have a bad interface, the fix is to provide a better
> one, not aggravate the problem by encouraging even more use of the bad
> interface.
"Bad" and "poorly documented" are two quite different aspersions.
More to the point: how can you build a "good" interface on top of a
"bad" one? Whatever fundamental shortcomings exist in the latter cannot
be hidden by the former.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-06 04:22:40 | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |
Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-05-06 04:06:46 | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |