In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/22/05
at 05:21 PM, "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:36:54PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim,
>>
>> > Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting renaming anything in any of the
>> > existing pg_catalog objects. I'm suggesting creating a new, easier to
>> > use set of views that would sit on top of pg_catalog.
>>
>> I have no objection to using easier to read names for the system views.
>> (This is the user-friendly views, folks, not the actual system
>> objects!). The reason I suggested the names I did was to be
>> consistent.
>Out of curiosity, what's the relation between the tables in pg_catalog
>and the 'actual system objects'? I ass-u-me'd that these tables were the
>backing store for the real information, but maybe that's not the case.
>> Thing is, at least for the next version, if we are changing the naming
>> conventions, we need to leave the old views alone, at least for one
>> version (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.). This means a new view name scheme
>> for the new views. Suggestions?
>If we're dropping the pg_, maybe call the new schema just 'catalog'?
That will break all of the older ODBC drivers.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(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
