On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:15:27PM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
> On 2005-05-05, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > This makes sense; I do wish that someone had mentioned it when I
> > originally raised the subject of new system views. It would have
> > saved us some work.
>
> I'd have raised it myself if I thought there was any mileage in it.
> As you can probably guess, I don't.
>
> information_schema is fine at what it is _intended_ for - as a
> standardized way of accessing a standard subset of the available
> metadata. In that sense it is still necessary - however it is not
> sufficient, and I don't believe that either the raw catalogs nor any
> reasonable extension of information_schema actually fills that gap.
The information schema has the same problem that every other system
built for every database does: it has a minimal set of abstract
information, which prevents it, by design, from having application-
specific functionality.
Kudos to the New System Views people for their hard work thus far :)
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!