| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |
| Date: | 2013-01-18 02:34:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20130118023437.GH3074@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-01-18 10:31:28 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 09:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I have no problem requiring C code to use the even data, be it via
> > hooks or via C functions called from event triggers. The problem I
> > have with putting in some hooks is that I doubt that you can find
> > sensible spots with enough information to actually recreate the DDL
> > for a remote system without doing most of the work for command triggers.
>
> Is that so much of a problem if it's OK to break it between major
> versions? Maybe require compilation with -DPG_NON_FORWARD_COMPATIBLE to
> make the hooks visible in the headers, so nobody can claim they didn't know?
I can't follow the connection between what you quote from my mail and
what you are saying ;)
The problem I see is providing enough information to the hooks, not
cross version compatibility. If we go the hook route I don't have the
slightest problem of breaking them in the next releases.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-18 02:35:18 | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-01-18 02:31:28 | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |