Dann,
> 1. There is not a whole lot of stuff that cannot be directly stored in
> the INFORMATION_SCHEMA location without modifying it.
See Andrew's post. There is a whole lot of stuff not covered by I_S in a way
that is useful to PGSQL users. Also this would require making
information_schema part of the default user path.
> 2. Almost all of the information that cannot fit will be useful to
> other database systems as well, and should be suggested to the ANSI/ISO
> committee. Since INFORMATION_SCHEMA is a very new idea (only two
> adopters that I know of so far) I expect it will need to grow and
> PostgreSQL could be one of the contributors. Whether the enhancements
> are accepted or not, it would be good to at least attempt to get them
> noticed.
I like that idea, actually.
However, there's not a whelk's chance in a supernova of our suggestions
getting read, let alone accepted. But we could make the effort. You
volunteering?
> 3. Of the fragment that does not fall under 1 and 2, it should be a
> carefully documented extension that lives in the same place
> (INFORMATION_SCHEMA) so that we know where to look to find it.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
