Re: Views, views, views! (long)

Andreas,

> There are only two choices: Creating a minimal subset tool, which will
> rely on INFORMATION_SCHEMA (or a schema API as in ODBC) as standardized
> by SQL specs, or making it specifically for every DBMS, whether using
> some fancy views or not.

Thing is, INFORMATION_SCHEMA doesn't hold a lot of information that people 
need to know.   Like permissions, comments, object owners, functions, types, 
etc.  If adding columns and views to the Information schema ... and changing 
keys in a couple of places ... is OK, then we have somewhere to go.

Unfortunately, PostgreSQL does not have a seat on the ANSI committee, so we're 
not going to get the standard changed.   The standard lately belongs to 
Oracle and DB2 and we have to suffer under it.

> Doing it seriously, it probably needs the internal DBMS object
> identifiers (oid in the case of pgsql), to uniquely identify objects
> even after a rename. Hiding the OIDs in schema views will reduce their
> usability.

Hmmm ... we argued about this.  I was in favor of hiding the OIDs because OIDs 
are not consistent after a database reload and names are.      I can see your 
point though; what do other people think?

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco