X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85460476358 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nat.inquent.com (CPE00508b028d7d-CM00803785c5e0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.103.22.28]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C5E47634A for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nat.inquent.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3OD6bYK047053; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:06:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rbt@rbt.ca) Subject: Re: Are we losing momentum? From: Rod Taylor To: sailesh@cs.berkeley.edu Cc: "scott.marlowe" , Shridhar Daithankar , PostgreSQL Hackers In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-+ID0Prl8f+pICS27GOPC" Organization: Message-Id: <1051189596.46146.24.camel@jester> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 24 Apr 2003 09:06:37 -0400 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-45.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE_2, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200304/841 X-Sequence-Number: 38331 --=-+ID0Prl8f+pICS27GOPC Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 01:49, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote: > >>>>> "scott" =3D=3D scott marlowe writes: >=20 > scott> Plus the fact that the underlying pg_ tables are stable > scott> from release to release makes it a bit awkward to upgrade > scott> the servers they play on. Most of them have gone ahead and > scott> created views that give them a consistent view of the parts > scott> of the database they need. >=20 > This is exactly the reason why in db2 _no_ guarantees are made > regarding the constancy of the system catalogs (that are in the SYSIBM > schema). Instead, the equivalent views (in the SYSCAT schema) are > _never_ broken (whether in a point release or a new version). In fact, > the SYSCAT views correspond to the ISO SQL standard. The INFORMATION_SCHEMA? Out of curiousity, how do they handle DB2 extensions? Do they create new views in that schema? Do they ignore them? I'm going with the assumptions DB2 has extended SQL specs in some shape or form. =20 --=20 Rod Taylor PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc --=-+ID0Prl8f+pICS27GOPC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA+p+Fc6DETLow6vwwRAiJPAJ4tIgN/LvjtyhPF5Z+h4q1IAkoPMwCfbjGJ +sPOsizr7VSa5eX7WU4vB4w= =WO41 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-+ID0Prl8f+pICS27GOPC--