From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: SET ROLE hook |
Date: | 2016-03-06 05:58:45 |
Message-ID: | 24215.1457243925@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I still don't see any point in trying to pass data back from the hooks
> as the extension can maintain that state just fine, although it looks
> like it would be pretty trivial to do using a new void* member added to
> role_auth_extra. Tom (or anyone else), any comment on that?
The point of packaging GUC-related state into a blob that guc.c
knows about is that then the right things will happen when guc.c handles
something like a SET LOCAL, GUC reversion at subtransaction rollback,
SET clauses attached to functions, yadda yadda. Are you sure your
extension can, or wants to, track all those possibilities for itself?
I remember thinking that we probably would need to extend role_auth_extra
to make this work, so I have no objection if you're finding that that's
actually the case. Might need to think about how more than one hook
could include state into the blob.
(Note: I've not actually read this version of your patch, although
I could make time for that next week sometime.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-06 05:59:34 | Re: How can we expand PostgreSQL ecosystem? |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2016-03-06 05:46:41 | Re: How can we expand PostgreSQL ecosystem? |