| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments |
| Date: | 2005-05-12 05:32:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4282EA59.1030101@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> FWIW, I don't see the issue as "internal vs external" at all. What's
> bothering me is whether these views can be considered sufficiently
> more stable and better designed than the physical system catalogs
> to justify recommending that application designers should rely on
> the views instead of the catalogs. That point doesn't seem to me
> to have been proven. The recent arguments in favor seem to boil down to
> "novices will find these easier to use", which is very possibly true,
> but novices don't have the same needs as programs.
As lead phpPgAdmin developer, I'm officially in favour of them. The
main reason being all the extra fruit they have that shows database
size, etc.
That means we can display this meta information in phpPgAdmin and not
worry about having to re-implement it all.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-12 06:13:16 | Re: New Contrib Build? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-12 05:23:17 | Re: Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments |