Re: Extension Templates S03E11

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Date: 2013-12-05 16:51:49
Message-ID: 52A0AF25.2010900@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/1/13, 10:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Having a management system for sets of objects is a *great* idea- and
> one which we already have through schemas. What we don't have is any
> kind of versioning system built-in or other metadata about it, nor do we
> have good tooling which leverages such a versioning or similar system.
> Extensions provide some of that metadata around schemas and object
> definitions,

Schemas can't manage objects that are not in schemas, so that won't work.

It would be great if we could take the dependency tracking mechanism in
extensions and expose it separately. I would like to be able to say

START PACKAGE foo -- bad name

bunch of DDL

STOP PACKAGE

use it, later

DROP PACKAGE foo;

This mechanism already exists in extensions, but it's combined with a
bunch of other things. Separating those things (and naming them
separately) might clear a few things up.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-12-05 16:52:22 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-12-05 16:45:51 Re: logical changeset generation v6.7