| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement() |
| Date: | 2013-07-22 22:08:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob0jOz-JP0uXDnY+eDQ7pFn2pOjoET1UxF10_WEJEh7DQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2013 4:06 AM, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> If these hooks will need to apply to a larger operation, I
>> think that mandates a different means to reliably expose the before/after
>> object states.
>
> I haven't checked the code to see how it would fit the API, but what about
> taking a snapshot before altering and passing this to the hook. Would there
> be other issues besides performance? If the snapshot is taken only when
> there is a hook present then the performance can be fixed later.
I had the idea of finding a way to pass either the old tuple, or
perhaps just the TID of the old tuple. Not sure if passing a snapshot
is better.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-22 22:11:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-22 22:01:50 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY. |