Re: clone_schema function

To make the casual user's life easier, in the face of this reality, it
would nice if the routine would generate a reasonably attempted "diff"
between the two so that all changes can be reviewed in a structured manner
aided by correctly configured tools and advice.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Igor,
> I understand your point, however, I have spent over a week making a
> function
> that previously did very little do a lot.
> Naming a table the same as a schema is a very silly idea.
>
> Unless you care to take the time to provide a full
> schema, and function that fails for reasonable , practical design
> I will ignore all further comments.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That is correct. But table old will NOT be converted to new because
>>
>> only the schema name is converted. And table "old" WILL exist because it
>> will also be copied.
>>
>> I have tested and it works properly.
>>
>> Please do not provide hypothetical examples. Give me an actual working
>> example that causes the problem.
>>
>> This statement:
>>
>> SELECT old.field FROM old.old;
>>
>> selects column “field” from table “old” which is in schema “old”.
>>
>> Your script converts it into:
>>
>> SELECT new.field FROM new.old
>>
>> which will try to select column “field” from table “old” in schema “new”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again:
>>
>> SELECT new.field
>>
>> means select column “field” from table “new”, which does not exists.
>>
>> Not sure, what other example you need.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Igor Neyman
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Melvin Davidson*
> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
>