To make the casual user's life easier, in the face of this reality, it would nice if the routine would generate a reasonably attempted "diff" between the two so that all changes can be reviewed in a structured manner aided by correctly configured tools and advice.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6...@gmail.com> wrote: > Igor, > I understand your point, however, I have spent over a week making a > function > that previously did very little do a lot. > Naming a table the same as a schema is a very silly idea. > > Unless you care to take the time to provide a full > schema, and function that fails for reasonable , practical design > I will ignore all further comments. > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Igor Neyman <iney...@perceptron.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> That is correct. But table old will NOT be converted to new because >> >> only the schema name is converted. And table "old" WILL exist because it >> will also be copied. >> >> I have tested and it works properly. >> >> Please do not provide hypothetical examples. Give me an actual working >> example that causes the problem. >> >> This statement: >> >> SELECT old.field FROM old.old; >> >> selects column “field” from table “old” which is in schema “old”. >> >> Your script converts it into: >> >> SELECT new.field FROM new.old >> >> which will try to select column “field” from table “old” in schema “new”. >> >> >> >> Again: >> >> SELECT new.field >> >> means select column “field” from table “new”, which does not exists. >> >> Not sure, what other example you need. >> >> Regards, >> >> Igor Neyman >> >> > > > -- > *Melvin Davidson* > I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you > wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you. >
