| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Justin Clift <jc(at)telstra(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns |
| Date: | 2004-07-01 17:30:59 |
| Message-ID: | 28771.1088703059@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com wrote:
>> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting
>> yourself to a standard.
> 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.
I agree. The stuff is certainly accessible in PG-specific tables, so
the argument that we are missing functionality doesn't hold any water
IMHO. The question is whether we have to keep information_schema
pristine. I think that you and Stephan have made enough concrete
points that the answer to that has to be "stick to the standard".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-01 17:47:11 | Re: Bug with view definitions? |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-07-01 17:23:10 | Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns |