On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
Right, that works. Updated patch attached; should solve the issues
raised in the thread. I renamed the catalog pg_db_role_setting as
suggested by Tom.
...
I have also added a view, whose only purpose is to convert the role
and
database OIDs into names. It's been named pg_db_role_settings, but
if
anyone has a better suggestion I'm all ears.
I dislike the idea of having a catalog and a view whose names are the
same except for a plural. It's confusing as heck, because no one will
remember which is which.
Since pg_settings is the existing user view, I think
pg_db_role_settings
is a reasonable choice for the new view, but then we need a different
name for the catalog. The only thing that comes to mind right now is
"pg_db_role_default", but I don't like it much. Anybody have other
suggestions?
The problem of having both a table and a closely related view is, IME,
one that comes up a lot. I think you just need to pick a convention
and stick with it. Mine is to append "_view" to the table name.
Renaming the underlying table doesn't seem like it helps at all.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
