Re: MV patch broke users of ExplainOneQuery_hook

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: MV patch broke users of ExplainOneQuery_hook
Date: 2013-04-09 14:28:53
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaTVZjKR_v0CoNbyhqZA3CJ4s3=-D6q3RbeXii_+he_hA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The materialized views patch adjusted ExplainOneQuery to take an
>> additional DestReceiver argument, but failed to add a matching
>> argument to the definition of ExplainOneQuery_hook. This makes the
>> hook unusable. The idea of this hook is that your hook function will
>> do something before and/or after calling pg_plan_query and
>> ExplainOnePlan. But this no longer works, because ExplainOnePlan
>> needs the DestReceiver, which hasn't been exposed to the hook. :-(
>
> TBH I'd like to revert all of that anyway; it seemed to me to be
> basically gratuitous breakage of an API used by plugins. I've not
> had time to look at whether there was an actual reason for it and
> if so how we might solve that differently.

Oops. I just pushed a fix for the situation as it stands, but it's
only 2 lines, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to revert it if we
decide on a different approach. I do agree it would be nice not to
need to change the API there.

--
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 Tom Lane 2013-04-09 14:33:37 Re: MV patch broke users of ExplainOneQuery_hook
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-04-09 14:25:35 Re: MV patch broke users of ExplainOneQuery_hook