Melvin, * Melvin Davidson (melvin6925@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >the query is outright wrong. > Really? I submit a query to help and all you can do is criticize? I explained exactly what was wrong with it, and how to write a proper query to answer this question, with the thought that you'd appreciate the help and would create a proper query. I'm a bit mystified as to why you seem to be unhappy with this. > Yes it is legal to create a table that starts with pg_, but any PostgreSQL > developer should > know that is not a good idea. That's really not an excuse for providing an incorrect query when you could simply adjust the query to properly filter on nspname instead of relname, further, while perhaps 'pg_' instead a good prefix to use in a PG database (note that other databases, of course, wouldn't have any issue using such a prefix), using a table name starting with 'information' or 'sql_' isn't nearly as questionable, yet your query also filtered those out. > If you don't like the query, write a better one yourself, but > kindly do not try to degrade the efforts of others. No, pointing out that a query is wrong and doesn't acurately answer the question is something which should be done, just as someone should call out a bug in code that's been submitted for inclusion in PostgreSQL. I've tried to be kind and point out exactly what's wrong, along with encouraging words of how to adjust the query to be correct. Having misleading and incorrect information in our list archives isn't being helpful- those archives are preserved for more-or-less forever, end up being returned in google search results, and have caused confusion and even data loss in multiple cases that I'm personally aware of (thank you to pg_resetxlog...). We should all try to work to minimize that, and to correct it when necessary as best we can through responses. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
