From: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | RE: Re: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for lar ge objects |
Date: | 2000-10-25 15:02:17 |
Message-ID: | 215896B6B5E1CF11BC5600805FFEA82103D982D7@sirius.edu.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
> > Idea: As we have this type of query in more than one part
> of the source tree
> > (ie: psql, jdbc, probably odbc), should we have a section in the
> > documentation containing common queries, like: retrieving a
> list of tables,
> > views etc?
>
> That's a good thought. It'd be a useful practice to review such
> standard queries from time to time anyway. For example, now that
> outer joins work, a lot of psql's backslash-command queries could
> be simplified (don't need the UNION ALL WITH SELECT NULL hack).
>
> Anyone have time to work up a list?
Perhaps a good long-term solution for this would be to support
INFORMATION_SCHEMA per SQL92? This requires basic schema support, of course
:-)
That way, it would be possible to use other tools as well, and supporting a
standard is always nice :-) Also, it wouldn't be necessary to update all the
frontends if the system table format changes - just update those views.
Everything may not be supported by INFORMATION_SCHEMA, but it may be a step
in the way...
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tony Simopoulos | 2000-10-25 15:15:26 | Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-10-25 15:01:16 | Re: AW: AW: BLERe: AW: AW: relation ### modified while in use |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tony Simopoulos | 2000-10-25 15:15:26 | Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-10-25 14:43:12 | Re: new maintainer for the ODBC driver? |