Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance

Andrew - Supernews wrote:

>On 2006-02-27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>  
>
>>I do have doubts about adding any large number of add-on views to
>>pg_catalog, because of the privileged place of that schema in search
>>paths.  It'd be better to put them in a separate schema ("pg_info"
>>maybe?) where they'd pose less risk of conflicts with user-defined names.
>>Does newsysviews already do this?
>>    
>>
>
>The current version in pgfoundry CVS uses "pg_sysviews" as the schema name.
>If you have any better suggestions for the name, or any other aspect of the
>project, then we're all ears.
>
>  
>
How fine-grained do we want to get on namespaces? I'd be slightly more 
inclined to have pg_info or maybe pg_utils as a place to stash not only 
extra system views but other utility stuff that we want to ship but is 
essentially droppable.

cheers

andrew