Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 29 March 2012 13:30, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> I'll go make that happen, and still need input here. We first want to
>>> have command triggers on specific commands or ANY command, and we want
>>> to implement 3 places from where to fire them.
>>> Here's a new syntax proposal to cope with that:
>> Is it necessary to add this complexity in this version? Can't we keep
>> it simple but in a way that allows the addition of this later? The
>> testing of all these new combinations sounds like a lot of work.
> I concur. This is way more complicated than we should be trying to do
> in version 1.
I'm at a loss here. This proposal was so that we can reach a commonly
agreed minimal solution and design in first version. There's no new
piece of infrastructure to add, the syntax is changed only to open the
road for later, I'm not changing where the current command triggers are
to be called (except for those which are misplaced).
So, please help me here: what do we want to have in 9.3?
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-29 15:34:54|
|Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive
changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-29 15:30:28|
|Subject: Re: Command Triggers patch v18|