From: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Melvin Davidson" <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: clone_schema function |
Date: | 2015-09-12 14:38:35 |
Message-ID: | efcf569b-05a2-4b78-a160-ed5c8ff7321f@mm |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Melvin Davidson wrote:
> "seriously flawed" is a bit of a stretch. Most sane developers would not
> have schema names of one letter.
> They usually name a schema something practical, which totally avoids your
> nit picky exception.
That's confusing the example with the problem it shows.
Another example could be:
if the source schema is "public" and the function body contains
GRANT SELECT on sometable to public;
then this statement would be wrongly altered by replace().
My objection is not about some corner case: it's the general
idea of patching the entire body of a function without a fully-fledged
parser that is dead on arrival.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2015-09-12 14:49:21 | Re: clone_schema function |
Previous Message | Charles Lynch | 2015-09-11 21:21:41 | BDR problem |