Virtual Schema docs #5454
Virtual Schema docs #5454
Conversation
|
This change is |
ericharmeling
force-pushed
the
crdb_internal
branch
from
f2f3c4e to
d4c1ede
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 3 files at r1.
Reviewable status:complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @awoods187, @ericharmeling, and @knz)
v19.2/crdb-internal.md, line 59 at r1 (raw file):
## Tables in `crdb_internal` `crdb_internal` includes the following tables:
I agree with your top level comment, we can't include this table without making detailed statements:
- for which tables, the API stability guarantees we provide
- which columns are considered "useful" and which we'd like users to avoid.
I don't really think we can avoid delaying #4326 any longer. Maybe one thing we could do is split that page up in smaller pages, so that the bits and pieces that are specifically relevant to crdb_internal become available earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
v19.2/crdb-internal.md, line 59 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, knz (kena) wrote…
I agree with your top level comment, we can't include this table without making detailed statements:
- for which tables, the API stability guarantees we provide
- which columns are considered "useful" and which we'd like users to avoid.
I don't really think we can avoid delaying #4326 any longer. Maybe one thing we could do is split that page up in smaller pages, so that the bits and pieces that are specifically relevant to
crdb_internalbecome available earlier.
sorry I mean we can't avoid delaying the other pr longer.
ericharmeling
force-pushed
the
crdb_internal
branch
from
d4c1ede to
17026a4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have refactored #4326 as we discussed separately.
Assuming we adopt that change, I recommend to keep the new page crdb-internal.md you are introduced here alongside the general stability guarantees in introspection-interfaces.md, and cross-link the two pages together.
Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r2.
Reviewable status:
v19.2/crdb-internal.md, line 12 at r2 (raw file):
The `crdb_internal` views typically represent objects that the current user has privilege to access. To ensure you can view all the objects in a database, access it as the `root` user. {{site.data.alerts.end}}
I would suggest another callout here that highlights that crdb_internal contains a mix of public and reserved elements, and that some public elements are non-programmable (with all the cross-references to interface-types.html).
v19.2/crdb-internal.md, line 107 at r2 (raw file):
## See also - [`SHOW`](show-vars.html)
Cross-reference introspection-interfaces.html here.
v19.2/virtual-schemas.md, line 2 at r2 (raw file):
--- title: Virtual Schemas
I am not yet 100% sold on the idea to extract this information in a separate page.
However, if you do, please remove the redundant paragraphs from the SQL name resolution page, and link from there to here.
ericharmeling
changed the title
ericharmeling
changed the title
- Updated terminology on information_schema page - Added virtual schemas page
ericharmeling
force-pushed
the
crdb_internal
branch
from
17026a4 to
d6d46c6
Compare
|
Closing in favor of #8909. |
Fixes #2957.
Fixes #4978.
This PR includes the following changes:
crdb_internalinformation_schemapageNote that each entry in the table of
crdb_internaltables (new in this PR) notes the stability of the table for programmatic purposes. We need a separate doc that details the API stability policy for all interfaces (i.e. explains what "public", "programmable", and "reserved" all mean, so that part of #4326). Then we can start adding notes about stability for each CRDB interface (as is done here).