Skip to content

Jt/improve fk name handling#69

Open
tnosaj wants to merge 15 commits intoaspiers:masterfrom
tnosaj:jt/improve-fk-name-handling
Open

Jt/improve fk name handling#69
tnosaj wants to merge 15 commits intoaspiers:masterfrom
tnosaj:jt/improve-fk-name-handling

Conversation

@tnosaj
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@tnosaj tnosaj commented Nov 16, 2023

No description provided.

tnosaj and others added 15 commits January 23, 2020 19:30
* Adds initial spatial index type

* I think i added tests?

* I was missing a comment
* Adding some more debug values for this

* Maybe?

* make it a bit more concretet

* correct variable casting

* Adds partition methods to table

* Adds diffing in one direction

* Works both ways, needs to dedup though

* Compares partitions in both directions correctly

* Spelling mistakes and regexp greedy

* Commands masked as comments for version compatability are included

* Keep comments if they are actually commands

* More generic end finder for regular and partition ends, added partition function/option finder

* first test

* Correct tests

* Correct tests

* doh

* Adds test in other direction

* Comment unused tests

* Comment unused tests - but really
* issue aspiers#40 - should drop FKs before indexes and create FKs after indexes

* Use parents to sort list of constraints

* And please dont leak the password

Co-authored-by: Ralph Bolton <ralph@coofercat.com>
Co-authored-by: _/\__/\__/\__/\_ <671148+357r4bd@users.noreply.github.com>
* switch from name to concated values for fks

* The names also refect the FKs
@diegobill
Copy link
Copy Markdown

This version is consuming all the memory available (probably because of the recursion):

Variable "%checked_changes" will not stay shared at /usr/share/perl5/MySQL/Diff.pm line 174.
Variable "%unsorted_changes" will not stay shared at /usr/share/perl5/MySQL/Diff.pm line 181.
Deep recursion on subroutine "MySQL::Diff::add" at /usr/share/perl5/MySQL/Diff.pm line 192.

@tnosaj
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

tnosaj commented Dec 9, 2024

its been so long i honestly cant remember the context of this change anymore . I do remember that we were comparing rather large schemas (500+ tables) with a 64mb container... but yes, looking at line 192 it could be solved differently.

i can take a look later - i am not using this anymore, but it is an academic challenge to solve :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants