Dann, > 1. There is not a whole lot of stuff that cannot be directly stored in > the INFORMATION_SCHEMA location without modifying it.
See Andrew's post. There is a whole lot of stuff not covered by I_S in a way that is useful to PGSQL users. Also this would require making information_schema part of the default user path. > 2. Almost all of the information that cannot fit will be useful to > other database systems as well, and should be suggested to the ANSI/ISO > committee. Since INFORMATION_SCHEMA is a very new idea (only two > adopters that I know of so far) I expect it will need to grow and > PostgreSQL could be one of the contributors. Whether the enhancements > are accepted or not, it would be good to at least attempt to get them > noticed. I like that idea, actually. However, there's not a whelk's chance in a supernova of our suggestions getting read, let alone accepted. But we could make the effort. You volunteering? > 3. Of the fragment that does not fall under 1 and 2, it should be a > carefully documented extension that lives in the same place > (INFORMATION_SCHEMA) so that we know where to look to find it. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
