Re: Are we losing momentum?
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1051226041.48589.9.camel@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Are we losing momentum? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 18:28, Tom Lane wrote: > Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh@cs.berkeley.edu> writes: > > Rod> The INFORMATION_SCHEMA? Out of curiousity, how do they > > Rod> handle DB2 extensions? Do they create new views in that > > Rod> schema? Do they ignore them? > > > Why extensions, even for things like indexes that aren't in the > > standard, they create views (SYSCAT.INDEXES, SYSCAT.INDEXAUTH etc.) > > ... > > Certainly - it's just that the meaning and number of existing columns > > and rows in the syscat views are always backward compatible. That > > includes support of the info schema - for the sql standard features > > that db2 supports. > > > So if there's something new in the catalog tables that is a result of > > an extension and doesn't appear as a column in the syscat views (or > > the info schema) then an appropriate column may be added to the view - > > provided that this doesn't break the info schema compatibility. > > Of course, IBM can afford to keep reps on the SQL standards committee to > make sure that no future spec extension conflicts with the names they've > used for their additions to INFORMATION_SCHEMA. We, on the other hand, > could easily get burnt by spec changes. We could probably get away with adding pg_ views to the information schema though. For extensions of an existing view, simply inherit the real view into a pg_ labelled view and add the new columns. -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: