On 18 April 2016 at 13:10, Sergei Agalakov <Sergei.Agalakov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thank you, I know this place. > I just wanted to check that my request will have the peoples support. > So far it doesn't. It looks like that or people never need to compare two PG > databases to find the differences in the schemas or security, > or happy to use the third party tools to do it, and don't want any native > support. If I see any support from other people for this idea then I shall > go to https://postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general, but looking on, > say, "Partitions in Oracle style" that are marked as have been started in > 2010 > (sure, INHERITANCE is so much Oracle style partitions!) I don't see it to be > very useful. I can't particularly vouch for that site, as I've personally never seen it before, but I'd like to say that you'll probably get along better if you appeared to have a more optimistic view. If you bothered to consider the "parallel query option" item listed on that site, and compared that to the current status of 9.6, you might feel differently. EDB and others have put lots of work in to parallel query for 9.6. If your intentions here are to gather support for your cause then I highly recommend not appearing negative. Keep in mind that you've not paid some company for a license for PostgreSQL and the people reading your emails here are most likely not at your beckon call, and are not here to fulfill all your PostgreSQL wishes. To me your proposal does seem quite half thought through. Do you really suppose we just sort the GRANT output and call it done. pg_dump now has stable output? I think that would barely scratch the surface. What about COPY output, we'd have to sort that too, and that could be rather expensive. Now, you could say that we'd just limit this to schema-only related stuff, and that might be ok, but you'll need to ensure that everything is addressed and that your now matching output didn't just occur because all of the planets happened to line up on the day you ran pg_dump. You might propose that we could get around the performance hit of generating a stable output by having an optional flag to enable this. That would appear to sound ok at my first thought. If C is your thing then you could open up pg_dump.c and have a look around, if not then remaining positive and constructive, and doing your best not to upset people who's C *is* their thing is probably a good tactical move here. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
