| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Fabrízio de Royes Mello' <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'legrand legrand' <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 'Pgsql Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two |
| Date: | 2019-12-20 07:20:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20191220072018.GC1473@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:45:26AM +0000, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> I've got interested in this. What's the current status of this
> patch? The CF entry shows it was committed.
>
> But I understood not, because the relevant code doesn't appear in
> HEAD, and Git log shows that it was reverted. Am I correct?
The patch has been committed once as of e788bd9, then reverted as of
9555cc8 because it had a couple of fundamental issues and many people
were not happy with it. The latest discussions point out to some more
advanced designs based on callbacks at certain points of a session
lifetime. You may want to double-check on that first.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco Slot | 2019-12-20 07:23:10 | Re: Disallow cancellation of waiting for synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2019-12-20 07:12:23 | RE: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |