Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com wrote:
>> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting
>> yourself to a standard.
> Having pg specific system tables (as we do) is something we need of
> course, for things that are not in the specification. Can't we simply have
> that outside of the standard information_schema. No one is saying that the
> comment and other properties should not be available.
I agree. The stuff is certainly accessible in PG-specific tables, so
the argument that we are missing functionality doesn't hold any water
IMHO. The question is whether we have to keep information_schema
pristine. I think that you and Stephan have made enough concrete
points that the answer to that has to be "stick to the standard".
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-07-01 17:47:11|
|Subject: Re: Bug with view definitions? |
|Previous:||From: Bruno Wolff III||Date: 2004-07-01 17:23:10|
|Subject: Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns|