Re: Use of systable_beginscan_ordered in event trigger patch

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Use of systable_beginscan_ordered in event trigger patch
Date: 2012-08-30 10:42:03
Message-ID: m2r4qo1x1g.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I find $SUBJECT fairly scary, because systable_beginscan_ordered() is
> dependent on having a working, non-corrupt index. If you are trying
> to run the backend with ignore_system_indexes so that you can rebuild
> corrupt indexes, uses of systable_beginscan_ordered() represent places
> where you can't turn that off, and are entirely at the mercy of the
> indexes being good.

Ooops. Didn't see that, thanks for noticing!

> Or maybe we should disable event triggers altogether in standalone mode?

+1

> I can think of plenty of ways that a broken event trigger could cause
> enough havoc that you'd wish there was a way to suppress it, at least
> for long enough to drop it again.

I fail to see how enabling Event Triggers in standalone mode would help
you get out of the situation that lead you there. It's a last resort
facility where you want the bare PostgreSQL behavior, I think. Now that
you mention it.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-08-30 11:08:43 Re: multi-master pgbench?
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2012-08-30 09:02:09 Re: Draft release notes complete