David,
Yes, it would be nice, but
1. I am still working also on bringing over the comments for various objectsYes, it would be nice, but
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:27 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 <melvin6925@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I will ignore all further comments.schema, and function that fails for reasonable , practical designUnless you care to take the time to provide a fullIgor,Naming a table the same as a schema is a very silly idea.
I understand your point, however, I have spent over a week making a function
that previously did very little do a lot.On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Igor Neyman <ineyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.![]()
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
