Re: clone_schema function

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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