Re: Schema version management
| От | Joel Jacobson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Schema version management |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAASwCXd9ct_k6NA-SC-7qo6+NA=H7aA8nwUJX9jPKTfoQqrhbw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Schema version management (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Schema version management
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
put the type first, since the type would imply whether the objectFWIW, I think you could save a level of naming if you were willing to
lives in a schema or not:
[type]/[name].sql
[type]/[schema]/[name].sql
Could work. But I think it's more relevant and useful to keep all objects
in a schema in its own directory.
That way it's easier to get an overview of what's in a schema,
simply by looking at the file structure of the schema directory.
I think its more common you want to "show all objects within schema X"
than "show all schemas of type X".
PS.
I was thinking -- the guys back in the 70s must have spent a lot of time
thinking about the UNIX directory structure -- before they decided upon it.
I did some googling and found found this explanation which was quite
amusing to say the least :-)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: