In article <f96a9b830410050323104845d8@stripped>,
Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@stripped> writes:
> Since the is no requirement to have an accessible DEFINITION_SCHEMA
> there may be a mechanism to recreate the definition on the fly from
> other information, but the same goes for the other view related base
> tables in the DEFINITION_SCHEMA. I see no requirement to store only
> the structure and not the SQL string.
You're right, my wording was sloppy. What I meant is that
information_schema must be able to _return_ (not _store_) information
about the structure. In theory this could be achieved by storing the
original SQL string only and parsing it on the fly, but this looks
clumsy to me.
> While I don't really care about the way the structure of a view is
> returned, I would very much like for it to be without those backticks.
... unless required if you use strange column names. I agree on that.
