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 EB5659DCAB2 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:26:09 -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 60043-09 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:26:11 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from smtp2.actcom.co.il (smtp2.actcom.co.il [192.114.47.35]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5799DCAB1 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:26:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from perpetual.jerusalem.plus.com (l192-114-46-179.broadband.actcom.net.il [192.114.46.179]) by smtp2.actcom.co.il (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jBFAQ4pk015782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:26:08 +0200 Received: from daniel (helo=localhost) by perpetual.jerusalem.plus.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Emqgd-000522-8S for pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:50:11 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:50:11 +0200 (IST) From: Daniel Ariel X-X-Sender: daniel@perpetual.jerusalem.plus.com To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Obtaining information on the schema of tables which In-Reply-To: <10809.1134630815@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: References: <20051214173955.GA9238@wolff.to> <22357.1134583686@sss.pgh.pa.us> <10809.1134630815@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/24 X-Sequence-Number: 5892 > > 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. OK. How do I obtain the SQL99/2003 specification without paying money ? Daniel