From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | "Guillaume LELARGE" <guillaume(dot)lelarge(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schema bug |
Date: | 2005-12-14 12:59:03 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E96D@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 14 December 2005 10:27
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Guillaume LELARGE; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Schema bug
>
> > I don't have a problem with that. Anyone else?
>
> I *do* have a problem if information_schema becomes non-system. For
> pgsql-core this is non-system, but a user would consider this
> system and
> like to have its display suppressed for day-to-day work.
Yeah, well, apart from that bit.
> I'm still not convinced we need to do anything. Renaming public is
> highly irregular, and finally showing system objects will make it
> reappear. The schema restriction allows individual filters
> who likes it.
Renaming public is irregular, but if we can allow it without breaking
anything else, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do it.
/D
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-12-14 17:14:20 | Re: Schema bug |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-12-14 10:26:58 | Re: Schema bug |