On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Ed L. wrote:
> On Wednesday September 8 2004 1:50, Ed L. wrote:
> > I see that a newly created database in 8.0.0beta2 now has tables
> > sql_sizing, sql_sizing_profiles, sql_packages, sql_features,
> > sql_implementation_info, and sql_languages as part of the information
> > schema.
> >
> > Given these are system tables, why are these tables not prefixed with
> > 'pg_', as in 'pg_sql_sizing', etc?
>
> For years we have long used the fact that pgsql system tables are prefixed
> with 'pg_' in various DBA utilities (e.g., dampen noise when querying
> pg_tables/pg_class), and more recently to auto-initialize replication for
> user tables only. Changing that convention breaks our stuff. I realize
> this information schema horse left the barn a year ago, I'm only now seeing
> it as we skipped 7.4 altogether. Just curious if there is good reason for
> the change in convention, so as to ease my pain.
INFORMATION_SCHEMA and its contents are part of the SQL spec.
