On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I think you could save a level of naming if you were willing to > put the type first, since the type would imply whether the object > lives in a schema or not: > > [type]/[name].sql > [type]/[schema]/[name].sql > > Could work. But I think it's more relevant and useful to keep all objects in a schema in its own directory. That way it's easier to get an overview of what's in a schema, simply by looking at the file structure of the schema directory. I think its more common you want to "show all objects within schema X" than "show all schemas of type X". PS. I was thinking -- the guys back in the 70s must have spent a lot of time thinking about the UNIX directory structure -- before they decided upon it. I did some googling and found found this explanation which was quite amusing to say the least :-) http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
