From: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Schema version management |
Date: | 2012-07-05 08:04:45 |
Message-ID: | CABwTF4UyLBfvQioX32NBzU320+M2maXL5rhsctWTSCPaL6q7xQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> My vote is - when there's an overloaded function, put each version in
>> its own file. And name the files something like
>> functionname_something.sql. And just document that something may not
>> be entirely stable.
>
>
> I would agree that's better if the dump order isn't deterministic.
>
> However, it looks like an easy fix to make the dump order deterministic:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-07/msg00232.php
>
> If the dump order is deterministic, I think its cleaner to put all
> versions in the same file.
>
> Benefits:
> + Pretty looking filename
> + Same file structure for all object types, no special exception for
> functions
>
I think there's a merit to keeping all overloaded variations of a function
in a single file, apart from the simplicity and benefits noted above. A
change in one variation of the function may also be applicable to other
variations, say in bug-fixes or enhancements. So keeping all variations in
one file would make sense, since it is logically one object.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2012-07-05 11:16:55 | Re: pgsql_fdw in contrib |
Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2012-07-05 07:15:35 | Re: Schema version management |