From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schema version management |
Date: | 2012-07-06 13:01:31 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYouMS5wJOp6h6-0XSAD-PjASkODLmy_TJJ33azHBC_Xg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This argument seems a bit irrelevant to me. pg_dump doesn't get to pick
>> and choose what will be in the database it's told to dump. If we're
>
> Sure.
>
>> going to do something like what Joel wants, we have to have file naming
>> conventions for operator and cast objects. So we can't just leave them
>> out of the conversation (or if we do, we shouldn't be surprised when the
>> ensuing design sucks).
>
> I guess what we're saying is that at this point we can pick non user
> friendly naming rules, like pg_operator/<oid>.sql or something like
> that, OID based. Impacted users might as well learn about extensions.
I think that would defeat some of the human-readability goals that
people have for this feature, not to mention that it would lose the
ability to do diff -r between a dump produced on cluster A and a dump
produced on cluster B.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-07-06 13:41:01 | Re: Covering Indexes |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-07-06 12:23:26 | Re: Schema version management |