Re: Views, views, views! (long)

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Views, views, views! (long)
Date: 2005-05-05 05:01:47
Message-ID: 200505042201.47978.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tim Allen 2005-05-05 05:03:49 Re: Views, views, views! (long)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-05 04:56:13 Re: Views, views, views! (long)