On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:21:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Aside from that, it's currently rather silly that every admin tool has
> > to code up a very complex set of queries to get info from the system
> > catalog. It makes much more sense to put that complexity into a set of
> > system views that are maintained as part of the backend, instead of
> > pushing that effort out to everyone who writes tools.
>
> So instead, they should code up complex queries to get info from the
> system views? Your claim only makes sense if you know exactly what
> "every admin tool" is going to need, what format they are going to want
> it in, and other things that I doubt you are really prescient enough
> to get 100% right.
Actually, given the amount of info provided by the views, I'd be
surprised if there's anything that is either missing (except for OIDs in
some places), or in the 'wrong format' for admin tools. If there is then
I'd like to hear about it so we can consider changes.
And btw, I'm not suggesting that these views will mean that admin tools
will never have to do any joining of tables, but they shouldn't require
anything nearly as complex as what's currently required.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
