| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Add CREATE SCHEMA ... LIKE support |
| Date: | 2026-02-06 15:30:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZFAkGMoV0fLtf+HJL4_cwivz0Vqfk1r5SemUZvNNfxkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, February 6, 2026, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> I'm attaching a PoC patch that implements the LIKE syntax for tables and
> indexes. I would like to start a discussion to see if this feature make
> sense and if it could be useful to have at core. I have intention to add
> support for more objects(sequence, functions, ...) in future patches if
> It makes sense.
>
I’d suggest you solve the functions cloning first to make sure that won’t
end up being a blocker. SET clauses in particular, and “atomic” functions,
seem non-trivial to deal with. Views too really, depending on the approach.
More generally maybe start with the documentation to define exactly how it
should behave and what limitations it would have (i.e., it isn’t going to
re-point schema references in black-box function bodies).
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-02-06 15:33:55 | Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never compress postgresql files |
| Previous Message | Pavlo Golub | 2026-02-06 15:27:00 | Re: [PATCH] Add last_executed timestamp to pg_stat_statements |