Why not tack on the missing functionality to the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views? A couple of new tables and foreign keys should do it, n'est ce pas?
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-hackers- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:02 PM > To: Tom Lane > Cc: PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Views, views, views! (long) > > Tom, > > > To put it more bluntly: exactly what are you accomplishing here that > > isn't already accomplished, in a *truly* standard fashion, by the > > INFORMATION_SCHEMA? Why do we need yet another nonstandard view on > > the underlying reality? > > To quote myself: > > Q: Why not just use information_schema? > A: Because the columns and layout of information_schema is strictly > defined by > the SQL standard. This prevents it from covering all PostgreSQL objects, > or > from covering the existing objects adequately to replicate a CREATE > statement. As examples, there is no "types" table in information_schema, > and > the "constraints" table assumes that constraint names are universally > unique > instead of table-unique as they are in PG. > > -- > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
