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 21:08:34 |
Message-ID: | 20210617210834.2pwayaburyxkr35j@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-06-17 16:50:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2021-06-17 15:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Uh, nobody ever promised that server-internal APIs are frozen as of beta1;
> >> that would be a horrid crimp on our ability to fix bugs during beta.
>
> > Sure, there's no promise. But I still think it's worth taking the amount
> > of breakage more into account than pre beta?
>
> Are there really so many people using the ProcessUtility hook?
> In a quick look on codesearch.debian.net, I found
>
> hypopg
> pgaudit
> pgextwlist
> pglogical
The do seem to be quite a few more outside of Debian. E.g.
https://github.com/search?p=2&q=ProcessUtility_hook&type=Code
shows quite a few.
Unfortunately github is annoying to search through - it doesn't seem to
have any logic to prevent duplicates across repositories :(. Which means
there's dozens of copies of postgres code included...
> which admittedly is more than none, but it's not a huge number
> either. I have to think that fixing this bug reliably is a
> more important consideration.
Sure!
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-17 21:11:26 | Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-06-17 20:53:26 | Re: pgbench logging broken by time logic changes |