| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Andreas Pflug" <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: information_schema OID |
| Date: | 2003-05-07 03:53:41 |
| Message-ID: | 24447.1052279621@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Also, should the information_schema be pinned so that it cannot be dropped?
Why? Sure, the DBA had better be damn certain that he wants to do that
before he does it. But we let superusers drop lots of things that they
would be better advised not to. If someone wants a small disk footprint
I can imagine a good case for feeling that information_schema is useless.
> This would help db admin projects such as phpPgAdmin be able to rely on
> information_schema being there...
Rely away. It's not your business to work in databases that a superuser
has made arbitrary changes to. Do you claim to still work if he renames
the integer "=" operator to "!#&@!!" ?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-07 04:24:50 | Re: 7.4 features list |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-07 03:34:19 | Re: [GENERAL] Installin Postgres |