Re: Views, views, views! (long)

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Views, views, views! (long)
Date: 2005-05-05 17:17:44
Message-ID: 200505051017.45071.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andreas,

> As Dave already pointed out, serious admin tools will avoid views. We
> have to deal with version specific issues anyway.

Actually, I don't think that's what Dave said. He simply said that modifying
pgAdmin to keep up with pg_catalog changes hasn't actually been a problem.

And, as an increasing number of 3rd-party tools support PostgreSQL (like
Embarcadero) they need a simple comprehensible API for system objects -- more
objects than are included in the information_schema. I'm currently working
on the integration of a major DSS tool with PostgreSQL, and we're already
using the alpha version of the system views because we need them. A 3rd
party proprietary vendor is not going to learn about OIDs, and they're not
going to use pgAdmin.

When we discussed this on this list 2 months ago, I was under the impression
that extending the information_schema was verboten becuase it would break the
SQL spec. If that's not the case, I personally would love to not duplicate
objects. But let's establish that.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2005-05-05 17:19:08 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
Previous Message David F. Skoll 2005-05-05 17:14:26 A real puzzler: ANY way to recover?