Jim,
> Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting renaming anything in any of the
> existing pg_catalog objects. I'm suggesting creating a new, easier to
> use set of views that would sit on top of pg_catalog.
I have no objection to using easier to read names for the system views.
(This is the user-friendly views, folks, not the actual system
objects!). The reason I suggested the names I did was to be
consistent.
Thing is, at least for the next version, if we are changing the naming
conventions, we need to leave the old views alone, at least for one
version (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.). This means a new view name scheme
for the new views. Suggestions?
I might suggest simply "tables" "triggers" "types" etc. The plurals
of these reserved words are no, AFAIK, reserved. And if users are
creating identically named objects in public, they just need to
remember to use the schema.
Oh, also for the "Parameters (array)" etc.? I was planning on having
text names there, *not* an array of OIDs or whatever. The purpose of
these views is to be user-friendly.
--Josh
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
