Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that
>> using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part?
> No, we have never stated that.
We do however point out in the docs that SELECT * is vulnerab
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that
> using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part?
No, we have never stated that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Start with a clean plate. Yes, we'll end up with an ugly schema name,
> but after the exiting pg_catalog is removed in a few versions, we can go
> back to pg_catalog.
Huh? pg_catalog isn't going away, and none of this discussion has
anything to do with
I'm going to reply to 3 emails in one here...
Out of Josh's 4 options, I think a new schema makes the most sense.
Start with a clean plate. Yes, we'll end up with an ugly schema name,
but after the exiting pg_catalog is removed in a few versions, we can go
back to pg_catalog.
The idea of using a
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:16:31PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> 4) ignore backwards compatibility and just re-write the old views. I can
> hear the shouting already ...
>
> So, a choice of annoying options. Does anyone else on the channel have
> opinions?
Isn't it a usefull option to
I may be missing something here, but haven't we always stated that
using 'SELECT *' should be frown'd upon for the most part? Is there a
reason why adding a column/field to an existing view should be considered
a bad thing?
As long as we don't remove existing colums that an app could be using,
Tom,
> Any new schemas introduced by PG itself will be named pg_something.
> This is not open to negotiation --- it's what we've promised to users
> to avoid tromping on their schema namespace.
I can see the sense in that. So, there's four ways I can see to do things:
1) leave the existing view
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we're dropping the pg_, maybe call the new schema just 'catalog'?
Any new schemas introduced by PG itself will be named pg_something.
This is not open to negotiation --- it's what we've promised to users
to avoid tromping on their schema namespace.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 05:21:32PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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.
They are.
>
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/22/05
at 05:21 PM, "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>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
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 objectio
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-fr
"Josh Berkus" writes:
> 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.
Only if you put them in some other sch
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:46:21PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >On another naming note; the naming convention for system stuff has
> >always driven me nuts. Some the letter prefix (ie: tab for tables) in
> >front of every field name, with no underscores or anything. Extensive
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:17:08 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'm proposing to expand both the coverage and number of "system views".
Generally: Nice. But have you considered if the INFORMATION_SCHEMA could
be used? Unfortunately, the INFORMATION_SCHEMA currently has a major
problem in its usefulness
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On another naming note; the naming convention for system stuff has
always driven me nuts. Some the letter prefix (ie: tab for tables) in
front of every field name, with no underscores or anything. Extensive
use of abbreviations that you need to remember (ie: indnatts, indexprs,
I'm glad to see a types view. A while ago I was trying to figure out a
way to query the pg_* views to see if a particular function existed. I
quickly got stuck trying to figure out how to properly handle the
arguments array. The solution Tom gave in this case was just to
hard-code the OID for the t
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:17:08PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This is for 8.1, or for 8.2 if we have a no-initdb cycle for 8.1.
>
> I'm proposing to expand both the coverage and number of "system views". Our
> system views are an extremely useful way to get data about the system i
18 matches
Mail list logo
