| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() |
| Date: | 2013-07-21 16:07:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20130721160729.GB126816@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:44:51AM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2013 4:06 AM, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > If these hooks will need to apply to a larger operation, I
> > think that mandates a different means to reliably expose the before/after
> > object states.
>
> I haven't checked the code to see how it would fit the API, but what about
> taking a snapshot before altering and passing this to the hook. Would there
> be other issues besides performance? If the snapshot is taken only when
> there is a hook present then the performance can be fixed later.
That would work.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-21 16:40:38 | Re: Preventing tuple-table leakage in plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2013-07-21 15:19:32 | Re: Preventing tuple-table leakage in plpgsql |