Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Clark C(dot) Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance
Date: 2006-02-26 17:57:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> 2) Modify the newsysviews to be extensions of the information_schema views:
> 	e.g. information_schema.tables would have the SQL03 information, and
> 	information_schema.tables_pg would have pg-specific stuff like table size 
> and last analyzed date. 

No way.  The entire point of information_schema is that it is standard;
adding non-spec things to it renders it no better than direct access
to the PG catalogs.

This thread is fairly interesting since we appear to be watching the SQL
committee allowing a brain-dead choice in the initial information_schema
design to force a non-backwards-compatible dumbing-down of the main spec.
Which they would surely never have done if it weren't for their self-
imposed rules about never changing information_schema (rules that they
appear to follow only erratically anyway ;-))

I'm disinclined to risk being put in a similar bind ... so even if
we were at liberty to put PG-specific stuff into information_schema,
I wouldn't do it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-26 18:08:52
Subject: Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer?
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-02-26 17:31:05
Subject: Re: TOAST compression

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group