Thread: schemas and system tables

<div class="Section1"><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial">Is it feasible and/or advantageous to move all the system tables to a system schema (to “system” or
“<spanclass="SpellE">pg_system</span>”)?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">  </span>This seems a much more natural place
forthis type of information.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">  </span>This would remove the artificial ‘pg_’ restriction
onclass names and simplify the overall system a little bit.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">  </span><span
class="GramE">Justa thought.</span></span></font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial"> </span></font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial">Regards,</span></font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial">Merlin</span></font></div>

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Merlin Moncure wrote:

> Is it feasible and/or advantageous to move all the system tables to a
> system schema (to "system" or "pg_system")?  This seems a much more
> natural place for this type of information.  This would remove the
> artificial 'pg_' restriction on class names and simplify the overall
> system a little bit.  Just a thought.

I believe 7.3 already did this with pg_catalog.