From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? |
Date: | 2011-02-26 22:01:45 |
Message-ID: | 4D697849.8050606@cs.helsinki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-02-26 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> IMO the major disadvantage of a refactoring like this is the possibility
> of sins of omission in third-party code, in particular somebody not
> noticing the added requirement to call ExecutorFinish. We could help
> them out by adding an Assert in ExecutorEnd to verify that
> ExecutorFinish had been called (unless explain-only mode). A variant of
> that problem is an auto_explain-like add-on not noticing that they
> probably want to hook into ExecutorFinish if they'd previously been
> hooking ExecutorRun. I don't see any simple check for that though.
> The other possible failure mode is forgetting to remove calls to the two
> trigger functions, but we could encourage getting that right by renaming
> those two functions.
While I don't really like the possibility of breaking third party
modules, I think the idea is good. Also +1 for adding checks where
possible.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-02-26 22:49:44 | Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-26 21:31:38 | Re: Generalized edit function? |