On 17 December 2013 18:32, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> I keep seeing people repeat "I don't like blobs" as if that were an >> objection. There is no danger or damage from doing this. I can't see >> any higher beauty that we're striving for by holding out. Why not >> allow the user to choose XML, JSON, YAML, or whatever they choose. > > I have no idea where you're going with this, but I *do* object to > sticking an SQL script which defines a bunch of objects into a catalog > table *right next to where they are properly defined*. There's just no > sense in it that I can see, except that it happens to mimic what we do > today- to no particular purpose.
The purpose is clear: so it is part of the database backup. It's a fairly boring purpose, not fancy at all. But it is a purpose, indeed *the* purpose. I don't see any technical objection here. We aim to have the simplest implementation that meets the stated need and reasonable extrapolations of that. Text in a catalog table is the simplest implementation. That is not a reason to reject it, especially when we aren't suggesting a viable alternative. I have zero attachment to this design, my interest is in the feature. How do we achieve the feature if not this way? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
