Re: Loss of some parts of the function definition

From: Sergey Grinko <sergey(dot)grinko(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Loss of some parts of the function definition
Date: 2015-05-04 17:27:00
Message-ID: CAA8WaEHP1mw9UdpZpMtPMtdv3+jELsmik4f9b7pW=ypaHxACvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

About view.
I found where I saw it was a discussion solve some problems with view
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Views_and_Rules, ie it is in the list
of TODO, so there is a chance that it will be implemented.
03 Май 2015 г. 12:15 пользователь "Sergey Grinko" <sergey(dot)grinko(at)gmail(dot)com>
написал:

> 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
>>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabrízio de Royes Mello 2015-05-04 17:33:16 Re: psql :: support for \ev viewname and \sv viewname
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-05-04 17:16:58 Re: BUG in XLogRecordAssemble