Re: oat_post_create expected behavior

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Mary Xu <yxu2162(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: oat_post_create expected behavior
Date: 2022-09-20 17:58:17
Message-ID: 965e830891dc775540264d9393ff987c622334a3.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 13:30 -0700, Mary Xu wrote:
> > Right, same thing I'm saying.  I also think we should discourage
> > people from doing cowboy CCIs inside their OAT hooks, because that
> > makes the testability problem even worse.  Maybe that means we
> > need to uniformly move the CREATE hooks to after a system-provided
> > CCI, but I've not thought hard about the implications of that.
>
> I like this approach, however, I am relatively new to the PG scene
> and
> am not sure how or what I should look into in terms of the
> implications that Tom mentioned. Are there any tips? What should be
> the next course of action here? I could update my patch to always
> call
> CCI before the create hooks.

I didn't see a clear consensus that we should call OAT_POST_CREATE
after CCI, so I went ahead and updated the comment. We can always
update the behavior later when we do have consensus, but until that
time, at least the comment will be more helpful.

If you are satisfied you can mark the CF issue as "committed", or you
can leave it open if you think it's still unresolved.

--
Jeff Davis
PostgreSQL Contributor Team - AWS

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2022-09-20 18:01:29 Re: Support tls-exporter as channel binding for TLSv1.3
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2022-09-20 17:45:36 Re: CFM Manager