On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 8:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Do you really fail to see the contradictions in this? You want the > database to preserve the original DDL, but you also want it to update > in response to subsequent alterations. You can't have both those Hi. I probably didn't express myself correctly. I don't think there's a contradiction. I originally wrote: "maintaining the original, at least until a re-write is necessary on renames". But that I meant that the SQL would be preserved as-is, *initially*. But that if/when a rename affecting that SQL happens, then it's fair game to re-write it. Because then the diff between my in-memory code-generated DDL, and the server-side DDL is no longer a false positive, as it is now from the "pre-emptive" re-write. What is creating me pain, is the fact the re-write of the SQL is *eager* instead of *lazy*. I.e. I'm paying for the rewrite, even when it's not strictly necessary (from my POV at least). I hope that makes more sense. Thanks, --DD
