Why not tack on the missing functionality to the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views?
A couple of new tables and foreign keys should do it, n'est ce pas?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:02 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Views, views, views! (long)
>
> Tom,
>
> > To put it more bluntly: exactly what are you accomplishing here that
> > isn't already accomplished, in a *truly* standard fashion, by the
> > INFORMATION_SCHEMA? Why do we need yet another nonstandard view on
> > the underlying reality?
>
> To quote myself:
>
> Q: Why not just use information_schema?
> A: Because the columns and layout of information_schema is strictly
> defined by
> the SQL standard. This prevents it from covering all PostgreSQL objects,
> or
> from covering the existing objects adequately to replicate a CREATE
> statement. As examples, there is no "types" table in information_schema,
> and
> the "constraints" table assumes that constraint names are universally
> unique
> instead of table-unique as they are in PG.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq