Re: making EXPLAIN extensible

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: making EXPLAIN extensible
Date: 2025-03-18 03:54:32
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0tM8jEe_LSjjrTux9TbTpLex-PFQtSuVcfXCWT=N+thug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> You only
> need the second hook if you want to check the values of options
> against the values of other options.
+1

I did not think of adding a new hook, because there must be a really good
reason to add a new hook. I think it's justified for this case. It's better than
my approach since the extension author can just put all their checks in one
place rather than having to register a bunch of handlers.

> some loadable module adds two new options LEFT and RIGHT and wants to
> check that you don't specify LEFT and RIGHT together? Either they
> register the same validate handler for both, or they register the real
> validate handler for one and a no-op handler for the other. Neither of
> those options seems very appealing.

When I thought about this, I figured that one of the options will register
a validate handler and the other option will set the handler to NULL. But,
I do see why this is not appealing.

--
Sami

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jian he 2025-03-18 03:55:44 Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row
Previous Message jian he 2025-03-18 03:20:16 Re: add function argument name to substring and substr