Re: DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo resultset returns more than just Postgres/user defined data types
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo resultset returns more than just Postgres/user defined data types |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 506AFADC.3040405@ringerc.id.au обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo resultset returns more than just Postgres/user defined data types (the6campbells <the6campbells@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On 09/24/2012 11:12 PM, the6campbells wrote: > The result set returned from DatabaseMetadata.getTypeInfo contains many > rows for instance it returns entries for tables and views in schemas. Everything is in a schema; if you don't specify a schema you just get the schema "public" by default. > This seems inconsistent with the 'spirit' of what this method is > intended to facilitiate. It lists all the types. Seems sensible to me. If you want to filter by schema, you filter by schema. Should types in pg_catalog.* be hidden? If so, what if an extension adds new types? Should they be listed? What if the *same* extension is instead installed into the public schema - should its types be visible, or hidden? What about a type created in `pg_temp`? It's just too messy with an extensible database like PostgreSQL. Without a very strong justification based on the JDBC spec for excluding system types (and how would we even define "system type"?) I'm strongly against changing the current behaviour. -- Craig Ringer
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: