Re: Event Triggers: adding information

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Event Triggers: adding information
Date: 2013-01-21 23:07:15
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZPhj6Rw-DottwresCJnOmRewbOxp2AABwyxP2k7vZf-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Please find it attached to this email.

Nice clean patch, thanks!

Committed, after tinkering with the CommandCounterIncrement() stuff a bit.

I will respond to the rest of your email later. Reading through this
patch left me with a slight concern regarding both ddl_command_start
and ddl_command_end: what happens if there's more than one event
trigger scheduled to fire, and one of them does something like drop
(with cascade) the function that a later one uses? Admittedly, that
seems like an unlikely case, but we probably want to check that
nothing too awful happens (e.g. crashing the server) and maybe add a
regression test to cover this scenario.

Another thing is that we might want to document that if a command
errors out, ddl_command_end will never be reached; and perhaps also
that if ddl_command_start errors out, the command itself will never be
reached. Perhaps this is so obvious as to not bear mentioning, I
don't know, but the thought crossed my mind that someone might fail to
realize it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Phil Sorber 2013-01-21 23:23:07 Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-01-21 22:48:38 Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)