On 4 October 2016 at 09:15, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> However, for tables and views, each object you store in those views is a
> "table" or "view", but with this thing, the object you store is
> "statistics". Would you have a catalog table called "pg_scissor"?
>
No, probably not (unless it was storing individual scissor blades).
However, in this case, we have related pre-existing catalog tables, so...
> We call the current system table "pg_statistic", though. I agree we should
> call it pg_mv_statistic, in singular, to follow the example of pg_statistic.
>
> Of course, the user-friendly system view on top of that is called
> "pg_stats", just to confuse things more :-).
>
I agree. Given where we are, with a pg_statistic table and a pg_stats
view, I think the least worst solution is to have a pg_statistic_ext
table, and then maybe a pg_stats_ext view.
>> It doesn't seem like the end of the world that it doesn't
>> match the user-facing syntax. A bigger concern is the use of "mv" in
>> the name, because as has already been pointed out, this table may also
>> in the future be used to store univariate expression and partial
>> statistics, so I think we should drop the "mv" and go with something
>> like pg_statistic_ext, or some other more general name.
>
>
> Also, "mv" makes me think of materialized views, which is completely
> unrelated to this.
>
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that.
Regards,
Dean
