From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SHOW CREATE |
Date: | 2019-07-15 14:18:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZCitzd8FQdf6=xaPEewtQmYFXRLbWF1oq+D1ahiGJuVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd like to hear what others have to say, and incorporate that feedback into a follow up proposal.
I am unclear how this could be implemented without ending up with a
ton of extra code that has to be maintained. pg_dump is a client-side
tool that does this; if we also have a server-side tool that does it,
then we have two things to maintain instead of one. I think that's
probably a non-trivial effort. I think you need to give some serious
thought to how to minimize that effort, and how to write tests that
will catch future problems without requiring everybody who ever makes
a DDL change ever again to test it against this functionality
specifically.
I would also like to complain that the original post of this thread
gave so little context that, unless you opened the patch, you wouldn't
have any idea what the thread was about. Ideally, the topic of a
thread should be evident from the subject line; where that is
impractical, it should be evident from the text of the first email; if
you have to open an attachment, that's not good. It may deprive people
who may have a strong opinion on the topic but limited time an
opportunity to notice that a discussion on that topic is occurring.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-15 14:20:48 | Re: Check-out mutable functions in check constraints |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2019-07-15 14:04:47 | Re: Built-in connection pooler |