Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs
Date: 2022-05-13 16:25:21
Message-ID: CA+TgmobB+AtAQKbEVWxPd=Q9da8_nQyRMEdya9Rr4Z=e1Wkrng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 8:47 AM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > Note that I'm *not* against making checkpoint extensible - I just think it
> > needs a good bit of design work around when the hook is called etc.
>
> When was any such work done previously for any other hook?? That isn't needed.

I think almost every proposal to add a hook results in some discussion
about how usable the hook will be and whether it's being put in the
correct place and called with the correct arguments.

I think that's a good thing, too. Otherwise the code would be
cluttered with a bunch of hooks that seemed to someone like a good
idea at the time but are actually just a maintenance headache.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-05-13 17:22:32 Re: recovery test failure on morepork with timestamp mystery
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-05-13 16:20:43 Re: Should use MERGE use BulkInsertState ?