Re: Event Triggers: adding information

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I have no problem requiring C code to use the even data, be it via hooks
> or via C functions called from event triggers. The problem I have with
> putting in some hooks is that I doubt that you can find sensible spots
> with enough information to actually recreate the DDL for a remote system
> without doing most of the work for command triggers.

"most of the work"? No, I don't think so. Here's the thing that's
bothering me about that: if the use-case that everybody is worried about
is replication, then triggers of any sort are the Wrong Thing, IMO.

The difference between a replication hook and a trigger is that a
replication hook has no business changing any state of the local system,
whereas a trigger *has to be expected to change the state of the local
system* because if it has no side-effects you might as well not bother
firing it. And the fear of having to cope with arbitrary side-effects
occuring in the midst of DDL is about 80% of my angst with this whole
concept.

If we're only interested in replication, let's put in some hooks whose
contract does not allow for side-effects on the local catalogs, and be
done. Otherwise we'll be putting in man-years of unnecessary (or at
least unnecessary for this use-case) work.

regards, tom lane