From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements |
Date: | 2021-06-17 19:25:43 |
Message-ID: | 20210617192543.fgiffbsiyxdf47iz@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-06-17 13:03:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a v2 that does it like that. In this formulation, we're
> basically hoisting the responsibility for doing copyObject up into
> ProcessUtility from its direct children, which seems like a clearer
> way of thinking about what has to change.
>
> We could avoid the side-effects on users of ProcessUtility_hook by
> doing the copy step in ProcessUtility itself rather than passing the
> flag on to standard_ProcessUtility. But that sounded like a bit of a
> kluge. Also, putting the work in standard_ProcessUtility preserves
> the option to redistribute it into the individual switch arms, in case
> anyone does find the extra copying overhead annoying for statement
> types that don't need it. (I don't plan to do any such thing as part
> of this bug-fix patch, though.)
>
> Barring objections, I'm going to push this into HEAD fairly soon,
> since beta2 is hard upon us. Still thinking about which way to
> fix it in the back branches.
Phew. Do we really want to break a quite significant number of
extensions this long after feature freeze? Since we already need to find
a backpatchable way to deal with the issue it seems like deferring the
API change to 15 might be prudent?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-06-17 19:28:36 | Re: unnesting multirange data types |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-06-17 19:23:00 | Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements |