Tom Lane wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Argument 3: backwards compatibility. Do you remember how tablespaces > > introduction broke pgAdmin? > > This argument, at least, is bogus. See my original comments to Josh: > it is not credible that these views will be significantly more stable > than the underlying catalogs. We don't change the catalogs on whims; > we change them because we have to in order to make some significant > improvement in functionality. For instance, if this nested-schema > idea goes in, the proposed views will have to change, or else become > useless for most of the purposes they are being touted for.
Ok, I agree. To be honest, I think the usability arguments are specious at best when we have the information schema. In fact, IMO it is a mistake to add a third way of describing the database unless there were plans to make significant changes to the system schema. However, I think PostgreSQL has a fairly serious security problem in that the system catalogs are open to the public. I don't seem to be winning many supporters on this particular point though. I wonder if people are aware just how much information a completely unprivileged account can pull out of the database? Including but not limited to: 1. all source code of user defined functions 2. list of all users on system (but not passwords) etc. Merlin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend