Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>On 2006-02-27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>I do have doubts about adding any large number of add-on views to
>>pg_catalog, because of the privileged place of that schema in search
>>paths. It'd be better to put them in a separate schema ("pg_info"
>>maybe?) where they'd pose less risk of conflicts with user-defined names.
>>Does newsysviews already do this?
>The current version in pgfoundry CVS uses "pg_sysviews" as the schema name.
>If you have any better suggestions for the name, or any other aspect of the
>project, then we're all ears.
How fine-grained do we want to get on namespaces? I'd be slightly more
inclined to have pg_info or maybe pg_utils as a place to stash not only
extra system views but other utility stuff that we want to ship but is
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2006-02-27 19:24:05|
|Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-02-27 19:17:03|
|Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance |