From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well |
Date: | 2000-02-28 08:02:22 |
Message-ID: | 21354.951724942@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>>>> itself do nothing except set a flag variable. The flag is examined
>>>> somewhere in xact.c after successful completion of a transaction,
>>>> and if it's set then we run a new transaction cycle in which we
>>>> read pg_shadow and write pg_pwd.
>>
>> If you think that this is okay (and not just a hack), then go for it.
> I consider it a hack, since this particular trigger needs a
> global flag known explicitly by xact routines. I like general
> solutions instead.
Well, really it's pg_pwd itself that is a hack --- we wouldn't need
to be worrying about all this if pg_pwd didn't exist outside the
database/transaction universe. But I don't think it'd be wise to
try to bring the postmaster into that universe, so we're stuck with
a hack for exporting user authorization info.
If we had examples of other problems that could be solved by such
a mechanism, then I'd agree with Jan that we ought to invent a general
after-commit-do mechanism. But I don't recall users clamoring for it,
so I question whether the extra effort is worthwhile.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-02-28 08:13:38 | Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-02-28 08:01:58 | AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |