| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erwin Brandstetter <brandstetter(at)falter(dot)at> |
| Cc: | guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "Compact" and "complete" SQL |
| Date: | 2010-05-10 19:16:19 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilfojzXk4s96A_TxBvOyjR7lTjowkQw8DKAoUxC@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Erwin Brandstetter
<brandstetter(at)falter(dot)at> wrote:
> On 07.05.2010 21:21, dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org wrote:
>>
>> Sorry - missed that. I generally prefer to only include SQL DDL for
>> things that are non-default.
>
> I generally agree. I see the "complete" variant as an option. The "compact"
> (non-default SQL DDL) version is what would make my work easier.
> However, at the time being we have a mixture. How would you define
> "non-default"?
Anything where explicit DDL is required to recreate the object as it
is. If the DDL is redundant (ie. it tries to set the value we get if
we don't use it at all), then it should be omitted.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erwin Brandstetter | 2010-05-10 19:48:18 | Re: "Compact" and "complete" SQL |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-05-10 15:09:57 | Re: Quiet logs for frmStatus |