Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2
От | lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0IAQ00A1GSB0FY@l-daemon обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
In <20050122232132.GS67721@decibel.org>, on 01/22/05 at 05:21 PM, "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> said: >On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:36:54PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim, >> >> > Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting renaming anything in any of the >> > existing pg_catalog objects. I'm suggesting creating a new, easier to >> > use set of views that would sit on top of pg_catalog. >> >> I have no objection to using easier to read names for the system views. >> (This is the user-friendly views, folks, not the actual system >> objects!). The reason I suggested the names I did was to be >> consistent. >Out of curiosity, what's the relation between the tables in pg_catalog >and the 'actual system objects'? I ass-u-me'd that these tables were the >backing store for the real information, but maybe that's not the case. >> Thing is, at least for the next version, if we are changing the naming >> conventions, we need to leave the old views alone, at least for one >> version (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.). This means a new view name scheme >> for the new views. Suggestions? >If we're dropping the pg_, maybe call the new schema just 'catalog'? That will break all of the older ODBC drivers. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca -----------------------------------------------------------
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: