Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement()

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() vs. CommandCounterIncrement()
Date: 2015-03-09 22:36:43
Message-ID: 20150309223643.GU3291@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 2013 4:06 AM, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> If these hooks will need to apply to a larger operation, I
> >> think that mandates a different means to reliably expose the before/after
> >> object states.
> >
> > I haven't checked the code to see how it would fit the API, but what about
> > taking a snapshot before altering and passing this to the hook. Would there
> > be other issues besides performance? If the snapshot is taken only when
> > there is a hook present then the performance can be fixed later.
>
> I had the idea of finding a way to pass either the old tuple, or
> perhaps just the TID of the old tuple. Not sure if passing a snapshot
> is better.

It seems this issue was forgotten. Any takers?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-03-09 22:40:48 Re: sepgsql and materialized views
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-03-09 22:35:05 Re: BRIN page type identifier