Drew Crampsie wrote:
>
> It would also help with regards to my other recent question (cf.
> "Data base sanity checks")
>
> With regards to this, my 'sanity checks' for all my databases are in the
> schema as CONSTRAINT's, or as RULE's or TRIGGER's that is an
> important part of databas
Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Berend> So for instance some application that did a really good job in
> Berend> project management or some other complimentary-to-lsmb
> Berend> application domain could be integrated (a little more) easily
> Berend> with the financial system (than
Hey,
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Berend Tober wrote:
> I am wondering why all the LedgerSMB tables are not created in an
> application-specific namespace, rather than the PUBLIC schema?
>
I cannot answer that question, and I do enjoy schemas for separating
database entities, but...
> [
> "Berend" == Berend Tober writes:
Berend> I am wondering why all the LedgerSMB tables are not created in an
Berend> application-specific namespace, rather than the PUBLIC schema?
Berend> I generally imagine that an organization probably has more
Berend> proprietary data st
I am wondering why all the LedgerSMB tables are not created in an
application-specific namespace, rather than the PUBLIC schema?
I generally imagine that an organization probably has more
proprietary data stored in separate data bases accessed by
different applications besides lsmb, but I also
I know there was a discussion about incorporating pg-tap into
LedgerSMB, but I imagine that will require some longer-term effort.
I am wondering if in the mean time there would be a good way to
perform some basic automated sanity checks indicating the
prepare-database has done everything it is
