Excerpts from Marti Raudsepp's message of mar ene 17 12:12:50 -0300 2012:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 04:28, Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
> > So... here's my first whack at solving this with some flexibility.
> > The first thing I did was add hook points where immediate statement
> > logging happens "pre_exec" and those that present duration
> > "post_exec". These should, with optimization turned on, have only a
> > few instructions of impact when no hooks are registered (we could
> > hoist the branch outside the function call if that were identified as
> > an issue).
> Note that the hook mechanism you've built is a departure from how
> other hooks are managed in Postgres. Traditionally hooks are just
> global function pointers, and each consumer is responsible for storing
> the previous value of the hook and chain-calling it in the handler. If
> you want to change this pattern, I think you should start another
Hm. We already have places doing the other thing, for example
see XactCallback and ExprContextCallback. Not sure we have an actual
criteria for deciding when to use which.
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-01-17 16:59:57|
|Subject: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-01-17 16:50:41|
|Subject: Re: automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic)|