| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal |
| Date: | 2016-07-17 18:08:25 |
| Message-ID: | 42bcaeeb-80f5-1eae-5cc8-7f36f97f0485@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/13/16 2:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 01:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> There was an unconference session on this topic at PGCon and quite a
>> number of people there stated that they found DDL to be an ease-of-use
>> feature and wanted to have it.
>
> Yeah, I haven't meet anyone yet that would like to have:
>
> select replicate_these_relations('['public']);
>
> vs:
>
> ALTER SCHEMA public ENABLE REPLICATION;
>
> (or something like that).
I generally agree, but I think the more important question is "Why?". Is
it becouse DDL looks more like a sentence? Is it because arrays are a
PITA? Is it too hard to call functions?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-17 18:27:24 | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-17 15:34:18 | Re: application_name in process name? |