Обсуждение: Remove obsolete information schema tables
I propose this patch to remove the information schema tables SQL_LANGUAGES, which was eliminated in SQL:2008, and SQL_PACKAGES, which was eliminated in SQL:2011. Since they were dropped by the SQL standard, the information in them was no longer updated and therefore no longer useful. This also removes the feature-package association information in sql_feature_packages.txt, but for the time begin we are keeping the information which features are in the Core package (that is, mandatory SQL features). Maybe at some point someone wants to invent a way to store that that does not involve using the "package" mechanism anymore. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:27:14AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I propose this patch to remove the information schema tables > SQL_LANGUAGES, which was eliminated in SQL:2008, and SQL_PACKAGES, which > was eliminated in SQL:2011. Since they were dropped by the SQL > standard, the information in them was no longer updated and therefore no > longer useful. The cleanup looks right. I cannot grep missing references FWIW. > This also removes the feature-package association information in > sql_feature_packages.txt, but for the time begin we are keeping the > information which features are in the Core package (that is, mandatory > SQL features). Maybe at some point someone wants to invent a way to > store that that does not involve using the "package" mechanism > anymore. I have a question here. Per the notes in information_schema.sql, SQL_SIZING_PROFILES has been removed in SQL:2011, attributes.isnullable and DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE in SQL:2003~. Would it make sense to cleanup those ones? -- Michael
Вложения
On 2019-10-17 09:44, Michael Paquier wrote: > I have a question here. Per the notes in information_schema.sql, > SQL_SIZING_PROFILES has been removed in SQL:2011, OK, we can remove that one as well. New patch attached. > attributes.isnullable and DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE in SQL:2003~. Would it > make sense to cleanup those ones? OK, I'll look into those, but it seems like a separate undertaking. We don't always remove things just because they were dropped by the SQL standard. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:01:09AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2019-10-17 09:44, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I have a question here. Per the notes in information_schema.sql, > > SQL_SIZING_PROFILES has been removed in SQL:2011, > > OK, we can remove that one as well. New patch attached. Looks fine. >> attributes.isnullable and DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE in SQL:2003~. Would it >> make sense to cleanup those ones? > > OK, I'll look into those, but it seems like a separate undertaking. We > don't always remove things just because they were dropped by the SQL > standard. But that's the same kind of cleanup you do here. What's the difference with DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE, which is mentioned as removed from SQL:2003? -- Michael
Вложения
On 2019-10-21 07:34, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:01:09AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 2019-10-17 09:44, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> I have a question here. Per the notes in information_schema.sql, >>> SQL_SIZING_PROFILES has been removed in SQL:2011, >> >> OK, we can remove that one as well. New patch attached. > > Looks fine. committed >>> attributes.isnullable and DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE in SQL:2003~. Would it >>> make sense to cleanup those ones? >> >> OK, I'll look into those, but it seems like a separate undertaking. We >> don't always remove things just because they were dropped by the SQL >> standard. > > But that's the same kind of cleanup you do here. What's the > difference with DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE, which is mentioned as removed from > SQL:2003? SQL_LANGUAGES for example, contains information about which version of the SQL standard is being conformed to. But since it's no longer in the standard, it most recently said that SQL:2003 is supported, which isn't very useful. We could extrapolate new values for more recent standards, but that's also questionable. So it makes sense to remove it. By contrast, I don't know why DOMAIN_UDT_USAGE was removed. It might still be useful. Just because something is dropped by an SQL standard, it doesn't mean we should remove it. For example, bit and bit varying are no longer in the standard. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services