| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Rules for 6.4 finished |
| Date: | 1998-08-26 13:04:03 |
| Message-ID: | 35E407C3.C6587ED3@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I'm running into some naming problems while doing so. Having
> pg_table, pg_view etc. as views lets a users assume pg_index
> would be one too where to get some information. But pg_index
> already exists.
>
> Should I name all of them pgv_... ?
>
> Other databases have many views starting with DBA or SYS on
> the other hand. For now I'll start naming them pgv_..., we
> could rename them before applying the patch.
I recall that there are some places in the code (maybe only in the
client-side drivers?) which check explicitly for a "pg_%" pattern to
decide if a table or resource is a system table.
How about "pg_index_v", for example?
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 1998-08-26 13:31:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Massimo patches |
| Previous Message | Tom Ivar Helbekkmo | 1998-08-26 10:54:10 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum problem |