Re: Immodest Proposal: pg_catalog.pg_ddl

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Immodest Proposal: pg_catalog.pg_ddl
Date: 2005-12-14 15:22:28
Message-ID: 43A038B4.7010004@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>
>>Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
>>damaging the DB. This would provide a non-volatile log of DDLs.
>>
>>
>
>In that case you have to provide a pretty strong argument why everyone
>should be forced to have a non-volatile log of DDLs.
>
>

Conversely, why *only* DDL. As soon as we had this there would be a very
strong demand to log DML.

Maybe we need an optional asynch logging process as yet another member
of our growing band of specialist background processes.

What I would like to see is some builtin functions that give me the
table's DDL, just as pg_dump does. Extra nice would be complementary
functions that also give me skeleton select statements for each table or
view. I used to use such facilities a lot in years gone by, along with
c&p - maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-12-14 15:39:43 Re: Immodest Proposal: pg_catalog.pg_ddl
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-12-14 15:19:56 Re: psql and COPY BINARY