X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB649DC9F2
	for <pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:13:37 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 25019-04
	for <pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:13:37 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2849DC9E3
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:13:34 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBF7DZgn010810;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:13:35 -0500 (EST)
To: Daniel Ariel <pgsqlinterfaces@netzach.co.il>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Obtaining information on the schema of tables which 
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512150920040.3946@perpetual.jerusalem.plus.com> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512122253330.25426@perpetual.jerusalem.plus.com>
	<20051214173955.GA9238@wolff.to> <22357.1134583686@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0512150920040.3946@perpetual.jerusalem.plus.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Ariel <pgsqlinterfaces@netzach.co.il>
	message dated "Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:28:15 +0200"
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:13:35 -0500
Message-ID: <10809.1134630815@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002]
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200512/23
X-Sequence-Number: 5891

Daniel Ariel <pgsqlinterfaces@netzach.co.il> writes:
> Is the required work to update to SQL2003 merely an update of the SQL of
> the views in information_schema ? If it would expedite matters I would
> be willing to help modify the SQL accordingly.

Possibly that's all that's needed, or maybe we need some changes to the
C-code functions that provide the protection-checking infrastructure for
the information_schema views.  The first step is to analyze exactly what
changed between the SQL99 and SQL2003 definitions of these views, and
then look at how this ought to fit in with Postgres' security features
(which are not 100% identical to what the spec thinks...).  If you've
got some time to spend on this, by all means hop aboard.

			regards, tom lane