Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting >> yourself to a standard.
> Having pg specific system tables (as we do) is something we need of > course, for things that are not in the specification. Can't we simply have > that outside of the standard information_schema. No one is saying that the > comment and other properties should not be available. I agree. The stuff is certainly accessible in PG-specific tables, so the argument that we are missing functionality doesn't hold any water IMHO. The question is whether we have to keep information_schema pristine. I think that you and Stephan have made enough concrete points that the answer to that has to be "stick to the standard". regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org