No, their error was that they shouldn't be querying system tables to perform field discovery; the same method in postgresql (pg_class or whatever its called) would have had the same result. The simple alternative is to use "describe table <table_name>".
On top of that, they shouldn't be writing ad-hoc code to query system tables, but having a separate library instead to perform those kind of task mixed with business logic (crappy application design).
Also, this should never have passed code review in the first place, but lets assume it did because errors happen, and this kind of atrocious code and flaky design is not uncommon.
As an example, they could be reading this data from CSV files *and* have made the same mistake. Conflating this with "database design errors" is just stupid - this is not a schema design error, this is a programmer error.
No, their error was that they shouldn't be querying system tables to perform field discovery; the same method in postgresql (pg_class or whatever its called) would have had the same result. The simple alternative is to use "describe table <table_name>".
On top of that, they shouldn't be writing ad-hoc code to query system tables, but having a separate library instead to perform those kind of task mixed with business logic (crappy application design).
Also, this should never have passed code review in the first place, but lets assume it did because errors happen, and this kind of atrocious code and flaky design is not uncommon.
As an example, they could be reading this data from CSV files *and* have made the same mistake. Conflating this with "database design errors" is just stupid - this is not a schema design error, this is a programmer error.