On R, 2004-07-02 at 05:07, Justin Clift wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting > >> yourself to a standard. The real question is whether PostgreSQL's > >> goal is to support SQL standards, or whether PostgreSQL's goal is to > >> give PostgreSQL users a useful set of tools. > > > > > > There are literally _hundreds_ of fields we could add to the > > information_schema. Either we add them all or we add none of them. > > Well, if we add them (and they would be very useful I reckon) should we > ensure there's an obvious PG naming thing happening? > > i.e. pg_column_comment > > or similar? Maybe not "pg_" but you know what I mean.
IIRC we were recently told (in this thread) that the SQL standard tells to end local customisations with underscore, so it would be 'column_comment_' --------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
