Re: Schema version management

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Schema version management
Date: 2012-07-06 13:01:31
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYouMS5wJOp6h6-0XSAD-PjASkODLmy_TJJ33azHBC_Xg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This argument seems a bit irrelevant to me. pg_dump doesn't get to pick
>> and choose what will be in the database it's told to dump. If we're
>
> Sure.
>
>> going to do something like what Joel wants, we have to have file naming
>> conventions for operator and cast objects. So we can't just leave them
>> out of the conversation (or if we do, we shouldn't be surprised when the
>> ensuing design sucks).
>
> I guess what we're saying is that at this point we can pick non user
> friendly naming rules, like pg_operator/<oid>.sql or something like
> that, OID based. Impacted users might as well learn about extensions.

I think that would defeat some of the human-readability goals that
people have for this feature, not to mention that it would lose the
ability to do diff -r between a dump produced on cluster A and a dump
produced on cluster B.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-07-06 13:41:01 Re: Covering Indexes
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-07-06 12:23:26 Re: Schema version management