Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Clark C(dot) Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance
Date: 2006-02-27 05:03:58
Message-ID: 200602262103.58561.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom,

> No way.  The entire point of information_schema is that it is standard;
> adding non-spec things to it renders it no better than direct access
> to the PG catalogs.

Hmmm ... so, per you, we can't add extra views covering non-spec objects to 
the information_schema (like aggregates) because we can't modify it in any 
way.  But per Peter we can't add new views to the pg_catalog because we 
want people to use information_schema.   I sense a catch-22 here.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-02-27 06:15:06
Subject: Re: TOAST compression
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-02-27 04:04:09
Subject: Re: TOAST compression

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group