From: | GPT <gptmailinglists(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Adding an extra boolean column to "information_schema.columns" or "pg_attribute" |
Date: | 2017-12-30 21:36:07 |
Message-ID: | CADep2PNqa=KBGQiQid0pEbN2QTimKpw+MpscvuoBbSz4LvaNxg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I do not have any intention to persuade anyone. The time runs faster
than any committee!
My question was very clear because I do not know the Pg's internal and
I would like to zero the side (fatal) (if any) effect.
So please, if you really know, tell me if there will be any problem in
case I define my own nonstandard view.
Krgds
On 12/30/17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> GPT <gptmailinglists(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I would like to add an extra boolean attribute to table columns,
>
> The contents of the information_schema views are specified by the SQL
> standard (ISO 9075). Since the entire point of having those views is to
> have a standard-conformant way of accessing the information in the system
> catalogs, adding nonstandard columns would rather defeat the purpose.
> If you can persuade the relevant ISO standards committee that this is a
> good idea, we will adopt the change when it appears in a published version
> of that standard --- otherwise, it seems quite unlikely that we'd accept
> a change to the view definition.
>
> You'd probably be better off to define your own nonstandard view, IMO.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-12-30 22:06:52 | Re: Does PostgreSQL check database integrity at startup? |
Previous Message | GPT | 2017-12-30 21:03:06 | Re: Adding an extra boolean column to "information_schema.columns" or "pg_attribute" |