Re: CREATE SCHEMA ... CREATE DOMAIN support

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CREATE SCHEMA ... CREATE DOMAIN support
Date: 2026-09-09 16:17:13
Message-ID: aqGGiZfONuhkd25F@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 06:53:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/09/2026 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, you have a point. There's pretty nearly nothing that's
>> well-designed about CREATE SCHEMA subcommands: as you say, the syntax
>> is shaky, and the namespace visible to subcommands is unclear, and
>> the whole business of re-ordering subcommands is debatable, and even
>> if all those things were fixed the benefit of the entire feature is
>> marginal. So maybe we should just say that our legacy implementation
>> is what it is and we will mark it deprecated rather than putting any
>> effort into improving it. I'd like to see more than one vote in favor
>> of that before I do it, though.
>
> Reverting seems like the safest thing to do. This is a really niche thing,
> but whatever behavior we pick, we'll be stuck with it for a long time. If
> we're not 100% certain about the new behavior, better to take a step back
> and discuss and design it with more time.

+1

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2026-09-09 16:24:32 Re: pg_get_*_ddl() needs a redesign
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-09-09 15:53:58 Re: CREATE SCHEMA ... CREATE DOMAIN support