Re: Last gasp

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> wrote:
> For me it would be enough to know if the trigger is fired by top-level
> command or not.

Well, you would have been out of luck, then.

>> - The patch isn't safe if the triggers try to execute DDL on the
>> object being modified.  It's not exactly clear what misbehavior will
>> result in every case, but it is clear that that it hasn't really been
>> thought about.
>
> It never seemed important for me, as the only thing I was ever expecting
> to do in a command trigger was inserting rows in one unrelated table.
>
> To me DDL-triggered-by-DDL seemed like a very bad idea anyway.
>
> But as you seemed to be envisioning some use-cases for that I did not
> object to you working it out.

Whether or not it works is one thing. I think it's acceptable for it
to not do anything useful, although actually I think that given a week
to work on it I could make it to completely safe. I don't think it's
acceptable for it to, say, corrupt the system catalog contents.

>> Now, if anyone who was actually following the conversation thought
>> these things were not problems, they could have written back to the
>> relevant thread and said, hey, I don't mind if the trigger firing
>> behavior changes every time someone does any refactoring of our
>> badly-written DDL code and if the server blows up in random ways when
>> someone does something unexpected in the trigger that's OK with me
>> too.
>
> I don't mind if the trigger firing behavior changes every time someone
> does any refactoring of our badly-written DDL code
>
> Here :)

Duly noted, but color me unconvinced.

>> Maybe not surprisingly, no one said that.  Two people wrote into
>> that thread after my latest round of reviewing and both of them
>> disagreed with only minor points of my review, and we had a technical
>> discussion about those issues.  But showing up after the fact and
>> acting as if there were no serious issues found during that review is
>> either disingenuous or a sign that you didn't really read the thread.
>
> As there are other ways to blow up the backend, i did not object to you
> either working out a better solution or leaving it as it is.
>
> I am speaking up now as this is the first time I am told I have to wait
> another year for this feature to arrive.

Really? You've never seen a patch punted to the next release before
because it wasn't robust enough? Considering that I see your name
mentioned in the 8.2 release notes, I find that a bit hard to believe.

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