From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API |
Date: | 2014-11-10 13:03:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoapznbT_6_k6SaPTnFWUbnAxF=ZOnR4kzv8F01Hobs92g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I thought that in general if user has the API to register the custom path
> methods, it should have some way to unregister them and also user might
> need to register some different custom path methods after unregistering
> the previous one's. I think we should see what Robert or others have to
> say about this point before trying to provide such an API.
I wouldn't bother. As KaiGai says, if you want to shut the
functionality off, the provider itself can provide a GUC. Also, we
really have made no effort to ensure that loadable modules can be
safely unloaded, or hooked functions safely-unhooked.
ExecutorRun_hook is a good example. Typical of hook installation is
this:
prev_ExecutorRun = ExecutorRun_hook;
ExecutorRun_hook = pgss_ExecutorRun;
Well, if multiple extensions use this hook, then there's no hope of
unloading them exception in reverse order of installation. We
essentially end up creating a singly-linked list of hook users, but
with the next-pointers stored in arbitrarily-named, likely-static
variables owned by the individual extensions, so that nobody can
actually traverse it. This might be worth fixing as part of a
concerted campaign to make UNLOAD work, but unless somebody's really
going to do that I see little reason to hold this to a higher standard
than we apply elsewhere. The ability to remove extensions from this
hook won't be valuable by itself.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-11-10 13:16:38 | Re: Column/type dependency recording inconsistencies |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-11-10 11:55:58 | Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API |