On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 12:51:14PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 12:47 PM, Thomas A. Lowery wrote:
>
> >I modified the tables and table_info methods to include the system
> >tables.
>
> Okay, so the question is, is this a desirable change? Do people want to
> know about the system tables or not? Is there a standard answer to this
> question? Should we have a separate method that includes system tables?
IMHO: a Pg only function is not a good option. It's very difficult to write
portable code.
The DBI doc reads:
"tables"
Warning: This method is experimental and may change.
@names = $dbh->tables( $catalog, $schema, $table, $type );
@names = $dbh->tables; # deprecated
Simple interface to table_info( ). Returns a list of
matching table names, possibly including a cata�
log/schema prefix.
See "table_info" for a description of the parameters.
If "$dbh-">"get_info(29)" returns true (29 is
SQL_IDENTIFIER_QUOTE_CHAR) then the table names are
constructed and quoted by "quote_identifier" to ensure
they are usable even if they contain whitespace or
reserved words etc.
With the "table" method including catalog, schema, and type, I can see no reason to
exclude the system tables.
--
Thomas A. Lowery
See DBI/FAQ http://xmlproj.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/fom
