Thread: Suggestion: additional system views
Folks, Is there any reason that we don't have pg_functions, pg_users, pg_groups and other system views? pg_tables and pg_views is really useful, but it would be good to cover the other items as well. Is there a reason not to have these other than that they're not coded? If not, I'll get working on them. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 07:35, Josh Berkus wrote: > Is there any reason that we don't have pg_functions, pg_users, pg_groups and > other system views? pg_tables and pg_views is really useful, but it would > be good to cover the other items as well. pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user does not already do? A pg_sequences view might also be handy. -Neil
Neil, > pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user > does not already do? Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with pg_groups; showing the list of users in the group. > A pg_sequences view might also be handy. Yes. Anything else? So far I have: pg_users pg_groups pg_functions pg_sequences hmmm ... pg_schemas pg_tablespaces ... as well, just for completeness. This is obviously and 8.1 thing, so I'll put it on my task list for after 8.0 PR is done. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Neil, > > >>pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user >>does not already do? > > > Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with pg_groups; > showing the list of users in the group. > > >>A pg_sequences view might also be handy. > > > Yes. Anything else? So far I have: > > pg_users > pg_groups > pg_functions > pg_sequences > hmmm ... > pg_schemas > pg_tablespaces > ... as well, just for completeness. > > This is obviously and 8.1 thing, so I'll put it on my task list for after 8.0 > PR is done. I suggest to add on pg_functions and on pg_views too, the list of dependencies with other objects. Regards Gaetano Mendola
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:49:47AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >Neil, > > > > > >>pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user > >>does not already do? > > > > > >Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with > >pg_groups; showing the list of users in the group. > > > > > >>A pg_sequences view might also be handy. > > > > > >Yes. Anything else? So far I have: > > > >pg_users > >pg_groups > >pg_functions > >pg_sequences > >hmmm ... > >pg_schemas > >pg_tablespaces > >... as well, just for completeness. > > > >This is obviously and 8.1 thing, so I'll put it on my task list for after > >8.0 PR is done. > > I suggest to add on pg_functions and on pg_views too, the list of > dependencies with other objects. pg_keywords pg_sqlstates Attached is a rough draft of the latter. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
Attachment
This has been saved for the 8.1 release: http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:49:47AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > >Neil, > > > > > > > > >>pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user > > >>does not already do? > > > > > > > > >Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with > > >pg_groups; showing the list of users in the group. > > > > > > > > >>A pg_sequences view might also be handy. > > > > > > > > >Yes. Anything else? So far I have: > > > > > >pg_users > > >pg_groups > > >pg_functions > > >pg_sequences > > >hmmm ... > > >pg_schemas > > >pg_tablespaces > > >... as well, just for completeness. > > > > > >This is obviously and 8.1 thing, so I'll put it on my task list for after > > >8.0 PR is done. > > > > I suggest to add on pg_functions and on pg_views too, the list of > > dependencies with other objects. > > pg_keywords > pg_sqlstates > > Attached is a rough draft of the latter. > > Cheers, > D > -- > David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ > phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 > > Remember to vote! [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:49:47AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > >Neil, > > > > > > > > >>pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user > > >>does not already do? > > > > > > > > >Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with > > >pg_groups; showing the list of users in the group. > > > > > > > > >>A pg_sequences view might also be handy. > > > > > > > > >Yes. Anything else? So far I have: > > > > > >pg_users > > >pg_groups > > >pg_functions > > >pg_sequences > > >hmmm ... > > >pg_schemas > > >pg_tablespaces > > >... as well, just for completeness. > > > > > >This is obviously and 8.1 thing, so I'll put it on my task list for after > > >8.0 PR is done. > > > > I suggest to add on pg_functions and on pg_views too, the list of > > dependencies with other objects. > > pg_keywords > pg_sqlstates > > Attached is a rough draft of the latter. > > Cheers, > D > -- > David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ > phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 > > Remember to vote! [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce, > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords? Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has already been shot down in flames. Unless people think that it's reasonable to have a system view for error codes and not one for, say, operators? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the > > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords? > > Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has already been > shot down in flames. > Unless people think that it's reasonable to have a system view for error codes > and not one for, say, operators? Uh, I thought the shoot-down was for duplication of existing information in new system tables, not the addition of new system table information, e.g. we have pg_operator, but no list of error codes or keywords in the system tables. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On Monday 06 June 2005 17:35, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the
> > > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords?
> >
> > Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has already
> > been shot down in flames.
> >
> > Unless people think that it's reasonable to have a system view for error
> > codes and not one for, say, operators?
>
> Uh, I thought the shoot-down was for duplication of existing information
> in new system tables, not the addition of new system table information,
> e.g. we have pg_operator, but no list of error codes or keywords in the
> system tables.
Would this include a new view for showing user priviliges, rather than the
current method of incense and chanting that are needed to divine the meaning
of pg_class.relacl ?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Monday 06 June 2005 17:35, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Bruce, > > > > > > > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the > > > > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords? > > > > > > Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has already > > > been shot down in flames. > > > > > > Unless people think that it's reasonable to have a system view for error > > > codes and not one for, say, operators? > > > > Uh, I thought the shoot-down was for duplication of existing information > > in new system tables, not the addition of new system table information, > > e.g. we have pg_operator, but no list of error codes or keywords in the > > system tables. > > Would this include a new view for showing user priviliges, rather than the > current method of incense and chanting that are needed to divine the meaning > of pg_class.relacl ? The new tables have to do with error messages and keywords. It has nothing to do with permissions. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Uh, I thought the shoot-down was for duplication of existing > information in new system tables, not the addition of new system > table information, e.g. we have pg_operator, but no list of error > codes or keywords in the system tables. System tables are primarily useful if (a) the information is variable for a given installation, or (b) client programs may want to automatically process the information. Neither seems to apply here. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/