Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ian Lance Taylor
Subject Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION
Date
Msg-id si1yp6wmzl.fsf@daffy.airs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION  (Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>)
Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:

>     What  I  (wanted to have) said is that the "one-time porting"
>     can be solved by external preprocessing/translation of  %TYPE
>     into  the  resolved  type  at porting time. That is *porting*
>     instead of making the  target  system  emulate  the  original
>     platform. You know, today you can run a mainframe application
>     on an Intel architecture  by  running  IBM's  OS390  emulator
>     under Linux - but is that porting?

Ah.  My personal interest is not in doing a straight port from Oracle
to Postgres and never going back.  I'm sure there are people
interested in that.  Personally, I'm interested in supporting people
who want to use either Oracle or Postgres, or both, with the same
application.

>     And  I  repeat  what I've allways said over the past years. I
>     don't feel the need for all the catalog mucking with most  of
>     the  ALTER  commands.   Changing column types here and there,
>     dropping and renaming columns and tables somewhere  else  and
>     kicking  the  entire  schema while holding data around during
>     application  coding  doesn't  have  anything   to   do   with
>     development  or  software engineering. It's pure script-kiddy
>     hacking or even worse quality.  There seems to be no business
>     process  description, no data model or any other "plan", just
>     this "let's code around until something seems to work all  of
>     the  sudden".  Where's  the  problem description, application
>     spec, all the stuff the DB schema  resulted  from?  Oh  -  it
>     resulted  from  "I  need  another  column because I have this
>     unexpected value I need to keep - and if there'll be more  of
>     them  I  can  ALTER  it to be an array". Well, if that's what
>     people consider "development", all they really need is
> 
>         ALTER n% OF SCHEMA AT RANDOM;

It is desirable to have some reasonable mechanism for changing the
schema without requiring data to be dumped and reloaded.  Otherwise it
is very difficult to upgrade a system which needs to be up 24/7, such
as many web sites today.

It is not acceptable for eBay to shut down their system for even just
a few hours for maintenance.  Shouldn't it be possible for eBay to run
on top of Postgres?

Ian


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: intelligence in writing a query ...
Next
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION