On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com wrote:
> > We're advertising to do pure ANSI, so we'd mislead people if we
> > supplied non-standard columns.
> Yes, but if folks wanted to stick to the standard PostgreSQL would
> still work. The only difference is that people who aren't concerned
> about being more tied to PostgreSQL would get some extra features.
> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting
> yourself to a standard.
What if we add a column and then in the next version of SQL they add a
column with the same name but a different semantics (not likely with the
name "comment", but that's not the question here).
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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-07-01 17:09:45|
|Subject: Re: Bug with view definitions? |
|Previous:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2004-07-01 17:04:33|
|Subject: Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns|