On 2005-05-05, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I would suggest that you align your terminology with the information
> schema as much as possible, so it would be "type_schema" and not
> "type_schema_name", and "ordinal_position" instead of
> "column_position". Otherwise we'll have a lot of confusion ahead if we
> instroduced a third parallel set of terminology.
Personally I'm open to suggestions on this; we didn't entirely agree on
the naming conventions when writing the stuff so far.
>> c) In most places, "system" objects are segregated from
>> "user" objects, e.g. pg_user_indexes
>
> I think that is a bad idea as it goes against the fundamental design of
> PostgreSQL.
In what way? Please elaborate.
>> g) All views are as normalized as possible, using child views
>> rather than arrays, and providing keys and consistent join columns.
>
> You still seem to have a bunch of arrays in there. Anything with an
> array is never normalized.
There are 6 array columns in there at the moment. One looks pointless and
might get removed (database_config). The others are all intentional and
cover cases where the denormalized view is (a) already easily available
within the query and (b) substantially useful. The normalized versions
are available too in all cases.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
