Re: Schema bug

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "Guillaume LELARGE" <guillaume(dot)lelarge(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Schema bug
Date: 2005-12-14 12:59:03
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E96D@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 14 December 2005 10:27
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Guillaume LELARGE; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Schema bug
>
> > I don't have a problem with that. Anyone else?
>
> I *do* have a problem if information_schema becomes non-system. For
> pgsql-core this is non-system, but a user would consider this
> system and
> like to have its display suppressed for day-to-day work.

Yeah, well, apart from that bit.

> I'm still not convinced we need to do anything. Renaming public is
> highly irregular, and finally showing system objects will make it
> reappear. The schema restriction allows individual filters
> who likes it.

Renaming public is irregular, but if we can allow it without breaking
anything else, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do it.

/D

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2005-12-14 17:14:20 Re: Schema bug
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2005-12-14 10:26:58 Re: Schema bug