Re: pg_dump --split patch
От | David Wilson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump --split patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikZ4tJBSoa0QCmvgfCx6M6kfexvEZnKzg8b8QTq@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump --split patch (Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump --split patch
Re: pg_dump --split patch |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com> wrote:
Why not place all overloads of a function within the same file? Then, assuming you order them deterministically within that file, we sidestep the file naming issue and maintain useful diff capabilities, since a diff of the function's file will show additions or removals of various overloaded versions.
--
- David T. Wilson
david.t.wilson@gmail.com
I think you are right about functions (and aggregates) being the only desc-type where two objects can share the same name in the same schema.This means the problem of dumping objects in different order is a very limited problem, only affecting overloaded functions.I didn't include the arguments in the file name, as it would lead to very long file names unless truncated, and since the problem is very limited, I think we shouldn't include it. It's cleaner with just the name part of the tag in the file name.
Why not place all overloads of a function within the same file? Then, assuming you order them deterministically within that file, we sidestep the file naming issue and maintain useful diff capabilities, since a diff of the function's file will show additions or removals of various overloaded versions.
--
- David T. Wilson
david.t.wilson@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: