| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited? |
| Date: | 2020-02-05 16:03:55 |
| Message-ID: | 5225.1580918635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> On 2/5/20 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Third-party context types would have to force the compiler to take
>> context-type values that weren't among the known enum values ---
> Doesn't that seem like a long run for a short slide?
Well, one thing we could do is assign an "other" or "custom" code,
and people who were just doing one-off things could use that.
If they were going to publish their code, we could encourage them
to ask for a publicly-known enum entry. We have precedent for
that approach, eg in pg_statistic stakind codes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2020-02-05 16:10:07 | bad logging around broken restore_command |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-05 15:59:32 | Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited? |