From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Guillaume LELARGE" <guillaume(dot)lelarge(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schema bug |
Date: | 2005-12-14 08:21:39 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E946@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgadmin-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgadmin-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Guillaume LELARGE
> Sent: 13 December 2005 23:44
> To: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Schema bug
>
> Le Mardi 13 Décembre 2005 00:48, Guillaume LELARGE a écrit :
> > Le Samedi 10 Décembre 2005 16:55, Andreas Pflug a écrit :
> > > Dave Page wrote:
> > > >>I still think this patch should be applied.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone see a reason /not/ to do this?
> > >
> > > Hm, Guillaume started a thread on pgsql-hackers about
> renaming system
> > > schemas in general, maybe we should wait for the result of that
> > > discussion.
> >
> > Well, it seems that pg_* schemas are system schemas and
> that public and
> > information_schema schemas are public one. I think we
> should exclude system
> > schemas depending on their names and show public and
> information_schema,
> > whatever their actual name are.
> >
> > I can bring a new patch if you agree with this and if you
> find this useful.
>
> What about this one ?
I don't have a problem with that. Anyone else?
/D
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | svn | 2005-12-14 08:49:23 | SVN Commit by dpage: r4844 - trunk/www/pgadmin3/cnt |
Previous Message | Guillaume LELARGE | 2005-12-13 23:44:29 | Re: Schema bug |