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

Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-01 17:47:11
Subject: Re: Bug with view definitions?
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2004-07-01 17:23:10
Subject: Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns

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