Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>What I would like to see is some builtin functions that give me the
> >>table's DDL, just as pg_dump does. Extra nice would be complementary
> >>functions that also give me skeleton select statements for each table or
> >>view.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, what I first
There were quite some proposals about additional triggers (on
connect/disconnnect) around, I wonder if some kind of
schema/database-level trigger could be used for DDL logging.
Or, "global triggers" where you can have a trigger that is executed upon
ANY DML or DDL...
Chris
What I would like to see is some builtin functions that give me the
table's DDL, just as pg_dump does. Extra nice would be complementary
functions that also give me skeleton select statements for each table or
view.
Yeah, what I first thought David was proposing was a consolidated view
simila
Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:33:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
and I don't even see the argument for doing it via a table rather
than via the postmaster log.
Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
damaging th
Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:33:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
and I don't even see the argument for doing it via a table rather
than via the postmaster log.
Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
damaging the D
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I would like to see is some builtin functions that give me the
> table's DDL, just as pg_dump does. Extra nice would be complementary
> functions that also give me skeleton select statements for each table or
> view.
Yeah, what I first thought D
Tom Lane wrote:
Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
damaging the DB. This would provide a non-volatile log of DDLs.
In that case you have to provide a pretty strong argument why everyone
should be forced to have a non-volatile log of DDLs.
Conve
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:33:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> and I don't even see the argument for doing it via a table rather
>> than via the postmaster log.
> Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
> damaging the DB. This w
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:33:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The idea is to make a new table in pg_catalog called pg_ddl.
>
> This seems rather poorly thought out --- I can't even tell whether
> your intention is to make a log of past operations,
Yes.
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea is to make a new table in pg_catalog called pg_ddl.
This seems rather poorly thought out --- I can't even tell whether your
intention is to make a log of past operations, or to provide a uniform
way to extract the current definition of every obje
Folks,
I've been looking into ways to have a better idea--automatically--of
what's been going on in a database from a DDL level, and here's what
I've come up with so far. I'd much appreciate hearing suggestions
and/or brickbats on this.
The idea is to make a new table in pg_catalog called pg_ddl
11 matches
Mail list logo
