| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add CREATE SCHEMA ... LIKE support |
| Date: | 2026-02-11 20:51:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYqck00fRp_xr6TVjBkQKbcJwWcQ6kTH+jipC0EzsPSkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, February 11, 2026, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> I also want to mention that I don't think that we would be able to
> properly re-created 100% all objects from the source schema into the new
> schema. Some objects will be hard to copy and can still generate bougy
> objects like functions for example as David mention on [1] (we can
> support some kind of functions but some others will be hard).
>
> Another issue is to handle complex relations like the following:
> - Function A returns a boolean type
> - Custom DOMAIN type call function A on CHECK constraint
> - Function B return/use a type of custom DOMAIN
>
> What we should create first? It can have functions that depends on
> domains, so domains should be created first, but it can also have
> domains that depends on functions, so functions would need to be created
> first. This would be trick to fix.
>
This is a solved problem in pg_dump, no? It understands and follows the
dependency graph. Even allows schema-only dumps.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-02-11 21:00:51 | Re: pg_upgrade: transfer pg_largeobject_metadata's files when possible |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-02-11 20:39:20 | Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests |