Wouldn't it make more sense to _exclude_ those types that should
absolutely not appear there?
I don't really see the point of excluding anything there in the first place
to be honest.
This method won't get called "accidently" with some random object name.
If that is an index (or something else), that's what the user requested.
As indexes and tables share the same namespace there will never be
any ambiguity which object is meant.
Currently the driver also returns columns for types "create type foo as ..."
I do rely on that as well.
Regards
Thomas
Dave Cramer schrieb am 15.10.2015 um 23:53:
> That's fine. I'll revert it. But I think the previous issue was that
> it was also returning indexes as well. I'll just narrow down to
> tables, views, and mat views
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> davec@postgresintl.com <mailto:davec@postgresintl.com>
> www.postgresintl.com <http://www.postgresintl.com>
>
> On 15 October 2015 at 17:39, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net <mailto:spam_eater@gmx.net>> wrote:
>
> All I can say is, that due to the nature of SQL Workbench (being DBMS independent) I do use (or at least test)
> many other DBMS and every[1] other JDBC driver does return view columns - including materialized views in Oracle
andDB2.
>
> So apparently all the other vendors think it makes sense to return view (and materialized view) columns.
>
> Thomas
>
> [1] I have tested at least briefly more than 15 different ones.