From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() |
Date: | 2015-03-09 22:36:43 |
Message-ID: | 20150309223643.GU3291@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> 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.
>
> I had the idea of finding a way to pass either the old tuple, or
> perhaps just the TID of the old tuple. Not sure if passing a snapshot
> is better.
It seems this issue was forgotten. Any takers?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-09 22:40:48 | Re: sepgsql and materialized views |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-09 22:35:05 | Re: BRIN page type identifier |