On 4 October 2016 at 09:15, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > However, for tables and views, each object you store in those views is a > "table" or "view", but with this thing, the object you store is > "statistics". Would you have a catalog table called "pg_scissor"? >
No, probably not (unless it was storing individual scissor blades). However, in this case, we have related pre-existing catalog tables, so... > We call the current system table "pg_statistic", though. I agree we should > call it pg_mv_statistic, in singular, to follow the example of pg_statistic. > > Of course, the user-friendly system view on top of that is called > "pg_stats", just to confuse things more :-). > I agree. Given where we are, with a pg_statistic table and a pg_stats view, I think the least worst solution is to have a pg_statistic_ext table, and then maybe a pg_stats_ext view. >> It doesn't seem like the end of the world that it doesn't >> match the user-facing syntax. A bigger concern is the use of "mv" in >> the name, because as has already been pointed out, this table may also >> in the future be used to store univariate expression and partial >> statistics, so I think we should drop the "mv" and go with something >> like pg_statistic_ext, or some other more general name. > > > Also, "mv" makes me think of materialized views, which is completely > unrelated to this. > Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
