Re: Immodest Proposal: pg_catalog.pg_ddl

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Immodest Proposal: pg_catalog.pg_ddl
Date: 2005-12-14 17:28:04
Message-ID: 43A05624.6010500@pse-consulting.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>
>>On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:33:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>and I don't even see the argument for doing it via a table rather
>>>than via the postmaster log.
>
>
>>Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
>>damaging the DB. This would provide a non-volatile log of DDLs.
>
>
> In that case you have to provide a pretty strong argument why everyone
> should be forced to have a non-volatile log of DDLs. Or will there be
> a way to turn it off? What about applications that, say, create and
> delete tens of thousands of temp tables every day?

There were quite some proposals about additional triggers (on
connect/disconnnect) around, I wonder if some kind of
schema/database-level trigger could be used for DDL logging.

Very vague idea, please rant now :-)

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2005-12-14 17:32:38 Re: psql and COPY BINARY
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-12-14 17:24:21 Re: psql and COPY BINARY