From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, abief_ag_-postgresql(at)yahoo(dot)com, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: from PG_DUMP to CVS |
Date: | 2004-08-27 16:02:20 |
Message-ID: | 200408270902.20350.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Philip,
> My thinking at this stage is to try to get pg_dump/restore to produce the
> output directly. Something like:
Hey, you do what you want, of course. However, it seems to me that hacking
AutoDoc would be a *lot* less effort than hacking pg_dump.
Interestingly, though, I was talking to someone on IRC (Neil? Gavin?) some 6
months ago or so about hacking a "PSQL-FS" that is, an interface to the
*live* database which would look like a filesystem. Were this done, it
would be child's play to rsync it with an archive. Whomever it was didn't
seem to think it too challenging a task.
> some-dbname/create.sql
> some-dbname/drop.sql
> some-dbname/econding.sql
> ...
> some-dbname/some-schema/TABLE/sometable/create.sql
> some-dbname/some-schema/TABLE/sometable/drop.sql
Hmmm. I see a slightly different structure below the schema level:
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable/create.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable/indexes.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable/constraints.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable/triggers.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable/rules.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/VIEWS/someview/create.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/VIEWS/someview/rules.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/FUNCTIONS/somefunction/param{codes}.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TYPES/sometype/create.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/OPERATORS/someoperator/create.sql
However, the above is somewhat unfriendly to CVS, as one can't drop
directories in CVS and that would be entailed in the dropping of any objects.
An alternative would be:
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable-create.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable-indexes.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable-constraints.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable-triggers.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable-rules.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/VIEWS/someview-create.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/VIEWS/someview-rules.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/FUNCTIONS/somefunction-param{codes}.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TYPES/sometype-create.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/OPERATORS/someoperator-create.sql
or even:
some-dbname/some-schema/TABLES/sometable.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/VIEWS/someview.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/FUNCTIONS/somefunction-param{codes}.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/TYPES/sometype.sql
some-dbname/some-schema/OPERATORS/OPsomeoperator.sql
In this last, all dependant objects of, for example, a table (rules, triggers,
indexes, etc. ) would be rolled up into one file. It's this last version
that I personally favor.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-27 18:59:26 | Re: Aggregate query for multiple records |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-27 15:43:32 | Re: Aggregate query for multiple records |