On 2005-05-05, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The purpose of the new system views... > > As long as they are in a separate schema (like information_schema, > but hopefully not as long). pg_views? pg_info? information_skema? :)
The proof-of-concept implementation puts them in pg_sysviews. This is by no means cast in stone. >> But if you think that nobody needs these views, it's because you >> haven't had much contact with end users lately. > > Well, who really *does* need these? After all, end users should be > using an interface of some sort. (DBD::Pg, phpPgAdmin, psql, etc). It's > the job of the people writing those interfaces to know the system > catalogs well and present them to the users in a pretty fashion. If > people want an "easy" way to look up the information, they use an > interface. If not, they should learn the system catalogs. One thing that has become _absolutely_ clear to me in the process of writing these views is that telling people to use the system catalogs is a _really_ bad idea. I've seen a number of apps now that have been doing incorrect catalog lookups and breaking to a greater or lesser extent as a result; furthermore, writing the views has often required delving into details of the backend implementation that are not well documented. (See a recent discussion here on typmods for an example.) -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
