Re: Loss of some parts of the function definition

Thank you Jim!
Views, they also have the problem. In my practice I use them very little,
so do not just remember them.
Somewhere I read that already are going to introduce their storage source.
If I find this source, then I write the link here.
I am a supporter of conservation of the source code.
I hope that the PostgreSQL developers still implement the storage of the
full DDL and PostgreSQL then receive another plus in competition with
commercial databases.
01 Май 2015 г. 23:03 пользователь "Jim Nasby" <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
написал:

> On 4/30/15 6:44 AM, Sergey Grinko wrote:
>
>> Now create a script in the application of its function parameters and
>> return values can be declared using %TYPE.
>> However, when you save the script is stored inside the server only what
>> is considered his body. Thus, we obtain:
>>
> ...
>
> We actually mung things a lot worse when it comes to views, so I'm curious
> why you're only worried about the problems with stored functions?
>
> FWIW, I think the best 'solution' to this right now is to actually keep
> your original definitions as files in your VCS and use something like
> sqitch for deployment. Taken to it's logical extreme, that means that the
> only thing you ever 'patch' is an actual table (via ALTER TABLE), or
> indexes. Everything else essentially gets treated like regular code.
>
> That's still not terribly satisfying since unlike other forms of software
> you now have all that definition both in your VCS and the database itself,
> but ISTM that's a much bigger problem than the small amount of info we lose
> from stored functions...
> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
>