Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by hub.org (8.10.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e9PForO92793;
	Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:50:53 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id e9PFoj528698;
	Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:50:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>
cc: Peter Mount <petermount@maidstone.gov.uk>,
 pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for lar ge objects 
In-reply-to: 
 <215896B6B5E1CF11BC5600805FFEA82103D982D7@sirius.edu.sollentuna.se>
References: 
 <215896B6B5E1CF11BC5600805FFEA82103D982D7@sirius.edu.sollentuna.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>
	message dated "Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:02:17 +0200"
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <28695.972489045@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200010/1010
X-Sequence-Number: 8054

Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> Perhaps a good long-term solution for this would be to support
> INFORMATION_SCHEMA per SQL92? This requires basic schema support, of course
> :-)

Yes, I think that's the right answer in the long run.  Won't happen for
a release or three though...

			regards, tom lane