> If you really need to update the data type for a supersized table you could always make a new column instead and migrate lazily to that in the background.
I do this "irritatingly often". That said, the fact that while I'm doing it I have the advantages of schemes to make certain I do it correctly is amazing ;P. Even in a world where I have to do this every day, I still wouldn't feel "ok, let's not have a schema at all" would be a better fix to that problem.
(To be clear: I am not "disagreeing" with you: I am agreeing with a point that is even stronger than the one you made, as I think you ceded too much ground ;P.)
I do this "irritatingly often". That said, the fact that while I'm doing it I have the advantages of schemes to make certain I do it correctly is amazing ;P. Even in a world where I have to do this every day, I still wouldn't feel "ok, let's not have a schema at all" would be a better fix to that problem.
(To be clear: I am not "disagreeing" with you: I am agreeing with a point that is even stronger than the one you made, as I think you ceded too much ground ;P.)