| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sql_drop Event Triggerg |
| Date: | 2013-03-26 19:10:33 |
| Message-ID: | 17465.1364325033@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Now there *is* one rather big performance problem in this patch, which
> is that it turns on collection of object dropped data regardless of
> there being event triggers that use the info at all. That's a serious
> drawback and we're going to get complaints about it. So we need to do
> something to fix that.
> One idea that comes to mind is to add some more things to the grammar,
> CREATE EVENT TRIGGER name ... WITH ('DROPPED OBJECTS');
Uh ... surely we can just notice whether there's a trigger on the
object-drop event? I don't understand why we need *yet more*
mechanism here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-03-26 19:19:31 | Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-03-26 19:02:24 | Re: sql_drop Event Triggerg |