| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, "David P(dot) Quigley" <dpquigl(at)tycho(dot)nsa(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: security hook on table creation |
| Date: | 2010-09-30 18:09:38 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimiKzk44apkdHi5o2ytp-i6b=RUen0pvLn_S-bP@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/9/29 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> In addition, I want to give these entrypoints its name which
> represents an appropriate purpose of the hook, rather than
> a uniformed one.
It sounds like you're proposing to create a vast number of hooks
rather than just one. If we have ~20 object types in the system,
that's 40 hooks just for create and drop, and then many more to handle
comment, alter (perhaps in various flavors), etc. I'm pretty
unexcited about that. The main hook function can always dispatch
internally if it so desires, but I don't see any benefit to forcing
people to write the code that way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-30 19:04:29 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-30 18:06:01 | Re: is sync rep stalled? |