I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part? Is there a reason why adding a column/field to an existing view should be considered a bad thing?
As long as we don't remove existing colums that an app could be using, but only adding a column, there shouldn't be any issues with backwards compatibility, shoudl there?
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
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
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
