From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [v9.3] OAT_POST_ALTER object access hooks |
Date: | 2012-12-03 14:07:54 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ1JKapzW9LwqRUoxh+Ra5Yauiaqr-8f4wCBYbj7Ld2dw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> * Do we need OAT_POST_ALTER hook even if no fields were updated
> actually? In case when ALTER SET OWNER, it checks object's ownership
> only when current and new user-id is not same. Right now, I follow this
> manner on OAT_POST_ALTER invocation.
> However, I'm inclined to consider the hook should be invoked when no
> fields are actually updated also. (It allows extension-side to determine
> necessity of processing something.)
I agree. I think it should always be called.
> * When tablespace of relation was changed, it seems to me the point to
> invoke OAT_POST_ALTER hook should be "after" ATRewriteTable().
> However, it usually long time to rewrite whole the table if it already have
> large number of rows. I'm not 100% certain to put hook here, so this
> version does not support hook when tablespace changes.
Well, if it's a post-alter hook, it should presumably happen as close
to the end of processing as possible. But are you sure that's really
what you want? I would think that for SE-Linux you'd be wanting to
get control much earlier in the process.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-03 14:08:35 | Re: Hot Standby Feedback should default to on in 9.3+ |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-03 14:03:33 | Re: [v9.3] OAT_POST_ALTER object access hooks |