On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote:
> >
> > If there's two items:
> > "Function" with a description and "Definition" with a
> > definition, I think it's fairly ignorant to read the former
> > as overriding the latter. The latter *is* the definition.
> >
>
> Yes, but if the sample code disagrees with the description shouldn't you at
> least ask someone in authority which one is right? Shouldn't you ask WHY
It's not sample code. It's a definition. If a description doesn't match
a definition, generally the definition wins and it's the description
that's wrong.
> some parts of the information schema should only be accessible if you are
> the owner when 99% of the information schema does NOT have this restriction?
Why would this be any more consistent than anywhere else in SQL? And they
use this same restriction in ATTRIBUTES as well (but not in DOMAINS).
> Nowhere in any function descriptions does it say that the user must be the
> owner, so clearly whoever wrote the sample code made a minor mistake, and
Let's see, "Identify the assertions defined in this catalog that are owned
by a given user", "Identify the check constraints defined in this catalog
that are owned by a given user", "Identify the columns that are dependent
on a domain defined in this catalog and owned by a user", ...
