| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Schema version management |
| Date: | 2012-07-05 15:59:09 |
| Message-ID: | 26673.1341503949@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Michael Glaesemann's message of jue jul 05 11:36:51 -0400 2012:
>> If we're dumping objects (tables, views, functions, what-have-you) into separate files,
>> each of these functions is a separate object and should be in its own file.
> Clearly there is no consensus here.
FWIW, I'm attracted to the all-similarly-named-functions-together
method, mainly because it dodges the problem of how to encode a
function's argument list into a filename. However, we're being
short-sighted to only think of functions here. What about operators?
Or casts? Those don't have simple names either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2012-07-05 16:04:28 | PG9.2 and FDW query planning. |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2012-07-05 15:58:57 | Re: Schema version management |