Stewart Smith wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 08:14:53PM -0400, Baron Schwartz wrote:
I am probably ignorant, but as I understand it, the I_S standard
specifies the common denominator and says any extensions to that are
fine. Is that not the case?
Yep.
I'd like to expose things like the data dictionaries of each of the
engines (e.g. INNODB_DATADICT) and maybe even the internal tables of
these engines (mostly for debugging purposes, but can be useful in field
when debugging problems on site) but I certainly don't want these tables
to be confused with I_S.TABLES and the like.
does "database metadata vs server metadata" make sense? Good point of
distincction?
No. The server is a process (or set of processes) that manages one
database (or a set of databases). "database metadata" is still the
collected schema information about the database, while "server metadata"
is the operational parameters of the server (IMHO, of course :)
The engine metadata collection you think about would probably be engine
specific, so why not talk about e.g. "innodb metadata" ?
Or do you think of a unified interface towards all engine metadata?
You can still present this information as tables or views inside the
information_schema. information_schema.innodb_tables is fairly descriptive.
If you want a separate schema, I'd suggest something that is named
"system" or "root" or whatever.
Thanks,
Roy
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
