RE: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects

Yes, the joins were one of the reasons I was going to do it.

If no one starts a list by Saturday, then I'll start one when I go through
JDBC.

Peter

--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support Officer, Maidstone Borough Council
Email: petermount(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
WWW: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk
All views expressed within this email are not the views of Maidstone Borough
Council

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 1:44 PM
To: Peter Mount
Cc: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects

Peter Mount <petermount(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
> Idea: As we have this type of query in more than one part of the source
tree
> (ie: psql, jdbc, probably odbc), should we have a section in the
> documentation containing common queries, like: retrieving a list of
tables,
> views etc?

That's a good thought. It'd be a useful practice to review such
standard queries from time to time anyway. For example, now that
outer joins work, a lot of psql's backslash-command queries could
be simplified (don't need the UNION ALL WITH SELECT NULL hack).

Anyone have time to work up a list?

regards, tom lane