Ilja Booij writes:
On 8 Jan 2004, at 16:23, Brian Blood wrote:
On 1/8/04 8:57 AM, "Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anybody disagrees with this: please yell and tell me why :)
I'm willing to do the work to add in table prefixes.
OK Brian, If you're willing to do this:
We need to decide on a design.
1. configurable prefix. I guess the default should be an empty prefix, to
default to the current table names.
2. do tablenames also need to configurable like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lou
mentioned
in a previous message? If queries get table names from variables, it
shouldn't be so hard to make the whole table name configurable.
Problem with configurable table names is, I don't see why one would need
this.. Prefixes make sense to me, but completely configurable table names
sound like over-complication to me.
Please shoot at my arguments. I think we need some strict requirements on
this before Brian gets to work ;-)
well brian can start pretty much anytime, but i'd have a poc soon re
configurable tablenames. well if there's configurable tablenames.. there's
not much point
doing prefixes? i can think of one argument why i'd want configurable
tablenames, some months ago my pgsql data partition was corrupted somehow..
(reiserfs) there wasn't much damage done, but the indices on my users and
aliases tables were damaged.. i couldn't even select the data (no dump).
that can be easily solved, since the data on those two table is static and a
dump to replace them or just create new_users, new_aliases,
alter tusers & taliases, nevertheless the same wont apply for msgtables.
for sure there will be other ways to utilize it.
cheers
