Re: Schema version management

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> FWIW, I think you could save a level of naming if you were willing to
> put the type first, since the type would imply whether the object
> lives in a schema or not:
>
> [type]/[name].sql
> [type]/[schema]/[name].sql
>
>
Could work. But I think it's more relevant and useful to keep all objects
in a schema in its own directory.

That way it's easier to get an overview of what's in a schema,
simply by looking at the file structure of the schema directory.

I think its more common you want to "show all objects within schema X"
than "show all schemas of type X".

PS.

I was thinking -- the guys back in the 70s must have spent a lot of time
thinking about the UNIX directory structure -- before they decided upon it.

I did some googling and found found this explanation which was quite
amusing to say the least :-)

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html