From 7a5bb9ee35a8a750c97b5770737651f70520133d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Boris Kolpackov Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 15:53:30 +0200 Subject: Expand on ability not to generate schema for certain objects/containers --- feature/list | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) (limited to 'feature/list') diff --git a/feature/list b/feature/list index 3ba0ee5..681dba2 100644 --- a/feature/list +++ b/feature/list @@ -21,6 +21,30 @@ See email from /13-Mar-2015. + Perhaps this should be also extended to columns. E.g., column + that is an expression. + + See email from /30-Apr-2015. + + The problem with columns is that it is only a part of the + solution. We should also ignore them in the INSERT statements, + and that will get hairy. Also it seems we may want to have + no_scema but insert column or no_schema/no_insert (expression). + Or perhaps if there is no_schema then also assume we are not + responsible for the insertion. + + What if we don't treat it as a column but as an expression + rather? I.e., it doesn't even end up in column_counts? Maybe + it ends up in expression_count? Will probably have problems + with things like empty(-looking) sections. + + Coming from another side: this will be pretty trivial to + implement with an object-loading view. Could we somehow + have a custom load implementation (via OVL)? Would also + be necessary for query. What about defining other + (potentially OL) views based on it. We cannot define a + view based on another view. + ! Primary key in to-many container table Can we add 'unique' (similar to 'unordered') to container of object -- cgit v1.1