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

Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 19:17:03
Message-ID: 21388.1141067823@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, I agree with him on that.  However, there's a certain amount of 
> confusion inspired by the organization that: "If you want to look up the 
> table's columns go to information_schmea, if you want the table *size* 
> go to sysviews."  But maybe that's unavoidable.  Or maybe we could link 
> the information_schema views into pg_sysviews?

We could, but I'd argue that this makes sense only if the added
PG-specific stuff looks like a seamless extension of the standard
definitions.  If there are obvious differences in naming style, table
layout, etc, I'd expect such a setup to look more like a hodgepodge
than a good idea.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-02-27 19:20:55
Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance
Previous:From: Hiroshi SaitoDate: 2006-02-27 19:07:21
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] display and expression of the home directory in Win32

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