Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050122232132.GS67721@decibel.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 ("Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2
Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:36:54PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim, > > > Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting renaming anything in any of the > > existing pg_catalog objects. I'm suggesting creating a new, easier to > > use set of views that would sit on top of pg_catalog. > > I have no objection to using easier to read names for the system views. > (This is the user-friendly views, folks, not the actual system > objects!). The reason I suggested the names I did was to be > consistent. Out of curiosity, what's the relation between the tables in pg_catalog and the 'actual system objects'? I ass-u-me'd that these tables were the backing store for the real information, but maybe that's not the case. > Thing is, at least for the next version, if we are changing the naming > conventions, we need to leave the old views alone, at least for one > version (pg_tables, pg_views, etc.). This means a new view name scheme > for the new views. Suggestions? If we're dropping the pg_, maybe call the new schema just 'catalog'? > I might suggest simply "tables" "triggers" "types" etc. The plurals > of these reserved words are no, AFAIK, reserved. And if users are > creating identically named objects in public, they just need to > remember to use the schema. Actually, the view names don't bother me at all. Granted, pg_ is 3 extra characters to type, but the names are crystal clear. What I don't like are the field names inside the views, and especially inside the pg_catalog tables. > Oh, also for the "Parameters (array)" etc.? I was planning on having > text names there, *not* an array of OIDs or whatever. The purpose of > these views is to be user-friendly. I think these views are also very useful in certain programming situations, in which also having the OIDs might be very useful. Another option would be to have functions that given a array of names would return a array of OIDs. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org 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?"
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: