Tom, > Any new schemas introduced by PG itself will be named pg_something. > This is not open to negotiation --- it's what we've promised to users > to avoid tromping on their schema namespace.
I can see the sense in that. So, there's four ways I can see to do things: 1) leave the existing views (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.) the way they are except for adding columns. Create new views based on the naming scheme of the old. 2) create new views in pg_catalog, using new names. The problem with this is that the most intuitive names (pg_tables, pg_views) are taken by the old views and I'm not sure what to name the new ones. 3) create a new schema with the system views in it, called for example pg_system_views. This seems cluttered to me; a whole new schema just for a dozen views? 4) ignore backwards compatibility and just re-write the old views. I can hear the shouting already ... So, a choice of annoying options. Does anyone else on the channel have opinions? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
