| From: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add CREATE SCHEMA ... LIKE support |
| Date: | 2026-02-06 15:46:11 |
| Message-ID: | aa93770d-1c47-428c-95f9-516e6abde127@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/02/26 12:30, David G. Johnston wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks for the call. I'll focus on these for the next version.
> 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).
>
Good point, I'll also include some initial documentation changes on
the next version.
--
Matheus Alcantara
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-02-06 15:47:07 | Re: [PATCH] Add last_executed timestamp to pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2026-02-06 15:45:20 | Re: log_min_messages per backend type |