From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com |
Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Rules for 6.4 finished |
Date: | 1998-08-26 16:25:26 |
Message-ID: | 199808261625.MAA12748@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Another topic is if we should create some more system views
> > > at initdb time. I would find views telling ownership and
> > > other information readable instead of Oid's very useful. As
> > > for pg_rule and pg_view it would be possible to create a view
> > > that describes the definition of an index instead of some
> > > cryptic numbers. And another one for real tables where
> > > indices and views are omitted would also be useful.
> >
> > Yes, these are good ideas.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
>
> I'm running into some naming problems while doing so. Having
> pg_table, pg_view etc. as views lets a users assume pg_index
> would be one too where to get some information. But pg_index
> already exists.
>
> Should I name all of them pgv_... ?
>
> Other databases have many views starting with DBA or SYS on
> the other hand. For now I'll start naming them pgv_..., we
> could rename them before applying the patch.
Perhaps pg_view_*. pgv_ is bad because the system only protects 'pg_'
from modification by the user, and psql does not dump out those table
names.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-26 16:37:27 | Re: [HACKERS] initdb problem |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-26 16:23:43 | Re: TODO (was: Re: [HACKERS] Problem with parser) |