On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 07:57, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On R, 2004-07-02 at 05:07, Justin Clift wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting
> > >> yourself to a standard. The real question is whether PostgreSQL's
> > >> goal is to support SQL standards, or whether PostgreSQL's goal is to
> > >> give PostgreSQL users a useful set of tools.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are literally _hundreds_ of fields we could add to the
> > > information_schema. Either we add them all or we add none of them.
> >
> > Well, if we add them (and they would be very useful I reckon) should we
> > ensure there's an obvious PG naming thing happening?
> >
> > i.e. pg_column_comment
> >
> > or similar? Maybe not "pg_" but you know what I mean.
>
> IIRC we were recently told (in this thread) that the SQL standard tells
> to end local customisations with underscore, so it would be
> 'column_comment_'
>
Yup... but before we go to far I think anyone who is thinking of adding
a column should see if there is a comparable column in
oracle/db2/$ql$erver. The point of information_schema (at least one
point of it) is to help application writers to write code that works
across different database systems and I wouldn't be surprised if those
folks had already extended the information_schema in some way.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL